Sitting of 4 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with), —Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—
Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords].
Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.
Manchester Ship Canal Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),
Bill read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
Middlesbrough, Stockton-on-Tees, and Thornaby Tramways Bill [Lords],
Read a second time, and committed.
Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Consideration, as amended, deferred till Friday.
Saint Mary, Radcliffe, Rectory Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Second reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Shops Bill,
Petition from Stoke Newington, against; to lie upon the Table.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL.
Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Local Legislation Committee (Section A); Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to:—
Widnes and Runcorn Bridge (Transfer) Bill,
London County Council (General Powers) Bill,
Great Northern Railway Bill, with Amendments.
Amendments to—
Ashborne and District Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE.
Copy presented of Statistical Tables of the Dublin Metropolitan Police for the year 1910 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
LAND REGISTRY.
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th April; Mr. Rowlands]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (ADDITIONAL POSTS).
Return presented relative thereto [ordered 10th April; Mr. William Peel]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND).
Copy presented of Return of the Areas, Population, and Valuation of Counties, Burghs, and Parishes in Scotland [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
Copy presented of University Court Ordinance, No. 37 (General, No. 2), Ordinance of the University Courts of the Universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Edinburgh (General, No. 2), Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Law (B.L.) and Amendment of Ordinance, No. 39 (General, No. 11), of the Universities Commissioners, Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES ACTS, 1879 TO 1908.
Address for "Return showing the working of the Regulations made in 1886 for carrying out the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879, 1884, and 1908, with Statistics setting forth the number, nature, result, and cost of the Proceedings instituted by the Director in accordance with those Regulations from the 1st day of January, 1910, to the 31st day of December, 1910 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 215, of Session 1910)."—[Mr. Churchill.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Arrest of Miss Malecka in Russia.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs whether he has anything further to report in the case of Miss Malecka; whether the British Consul has yet obtained an interview with her; what representations have been made to the Russian Government; and what reply they have made.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to hon. Member for North Salford yesterday.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has yet obtained any particulars of the charge in respect of which this lady is being detained in prison?
  Sir E. GREY: I have stated before that the British Consul at Warsaw has been given permission to visit her unofficially, and has done so. She was arrested on a charge of conspiring against the Russian Government.
  Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: May I ask whether in order to prove that Miss Malecka is a Russian subject the Russian Government will not have to prove that she is the daughter of a Russian subject by a legal marriage?
  Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the answer.
  Mr. MORRELL: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend has been given any assurance by the Russian Government when the trial, if there is to be one, is going to take place?
  Sir E. GREY: I have to refer my hon. Friend to the answer which was given yesterday. I have nothing to add to that.
  Mr. MORRELL: I should like to raise this mailer on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-night at eleven o'clock.

  Russia to India (Projected Railway).
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a project for the construction of a railway from Russia to India via Persia has been submitted to him; and, if so, will he say what is the attitude of the Government towards it; and has he any information that he can give to the House with regard to the scheme?
  Sir E. GREY: The answer to the first part of the Noble Earl's question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second, His Majesty's Government would not oppose such a railway if they were satisfied that British and Indian interests were adequately protected. I am not at present in a position to give any particulars about the scheme.

  Pelagic Sealing.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to give any information with reference to the agreement arrived at by the Fur Seal Conference regarding pelagic sealing?
  Sir E. GREY: I cannot give any information at present, as the proposed agreement is still under consideration.

  Putomayo Murders.
  Mr. WEDGWOODasked (1) whether His Majesty's Government have received from Peru any information as to the arrest and prosecution of Aurelio Rodriguez, the Peruvian-Amazon Company's agent, most gravely implicated in the Putomayo murders; (2) whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to urge upon the Peruvian Government the desirability of instituting criminal proceedings against Senor Julio Caesar Arana, the founder of the firm of J. C. Arana and Brothers, on the Putomayo, whose business and agents the Peruvian-Amazon Company, Limited, took over on the strength of assurances made by him, whose responsibility for the condition of things revealed by Consul Casement's report would seem to call for very strict investigation; and (3) with reference to the Putomayo atrocities, what has happened to Victor Macedo, Jose Inocente Fonseca, Abelardo Aguero, and the other agents of the company, and leaders in the cruelties committed on the natives; and whether any steps are being taken by the Peruvian Government to prevent the escape of these criminals?
  Sir E. GREY: I have brought all the facts to the knowledge of the Peruvian Government, in the expectation that they will take the necessary action to punish criminals. I am not in a position to make any further statement at present as to the steps which they have taken.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to let us have Sir Richard Casement's report published as soon as possible?
  Sir E. GREY: I have not given any undertaking to publish the report yet. It is a matter that requires careful consideration.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: I want to know whether we can have either the punishment of the criminals in Peru or the publication of the report?
  Sir E. GREY: I said I must have further time to consider the question of the publication of the report. Questions as to whether the Peruvian Government took sufficient steps to punish the criminals and to bring about such a state of affairs in that region as will make the recurrence of things of this kind impossible are all very material points in regard to the future.

  Police Administration in India.
  Mr. MORRELLasked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the recent proceedings in the High Court of Calcutta, in which the conviction of three police officers of voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession was upheld by the Court; whether he is aware that the man named Bhola, from whom they thus endeavoured to extort confession, died under their torture; and whether he can say why these police officers were not tried for murder?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The police officers concerned were tried for murder. They were acquitted on that charge, but were convicted and sentenced on the lesser charge of voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession.

  Wolfram Mines in Burma.
  EARL of RONALDSHAYasked (1) if concessions to work wolfram mines in | Burma have recently been granted to German syndicates; and (2), if, in view of the restricted area in which it is found and the uses to which it is put, the Government of India have considered the advisability of limiting the granting of concessions for working wolfram to British subjects?
  Mr. MONTAGU: It may be convenient if I answer this and the Noble Lord's following question together. The Secretary of State has ascertained from the Government of India that applications for prospecting licenses have been filed by two German firms, one in Bombay and one in Rangoon, but that no prospecting license or mining lease has yet been issued
  954
  to any German firm or syndicate. The Government of India do not consider it necessary to place restrictions on foreigners in respect of wolfram deposits in Burma. Such deposits are found in many parts of the world. The ordinary mining rules in force in India give sufficient power to limit the area granted to any individual or company.
  Mr. LEE: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what wolfram mines are?
  Mr. MONTAGU: I am not a mining ex pert, and I am afraid I cannot answer the question.

  Cotton Goods in India (Excise Duty).
  Mr. BIGLANDasked whether any portion of the Excise duty on cotton goods in India, which amounted to £2,326,605 revenue to the Government of India, was returned to the cotton spinners in India on goods manufactured by them and exported abroad; and, if so, how much?
  Mr. MONTAGU: So far as can be ascertained, some £35,000 in all has been paid from 1896 to 1911 by way of drawback on Indian cotton goods exported abroad after payment of the Excise duty. The system of collecting the duty is such that ordinarily exports of cotton goods are made from bond and are not assessed to duty. Payment and refund of duty is, therefore, the exception.

  Territorial Force Advisory Council.
  Captain CLIVEasked the Undersecretary of State for War, seeing that the Territorial Force Advisory Council, of which he is chairman, has not met for nearly two years, whether he proposes to continue that body in existence; and, if not, what means he proposes to take to give Territorial officers of experience a voice in the management of the force?
  Mr. SANDYShad given notice of the following question: To ask the Undersecretary of State for War what are the functions of the Territorial Force Advisory Council?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): I will reply to both questions at the same time. The duties of the Territorial Force Advisory Council are to advise the Army Council upon such of the larger questions of policy affecting the Territorial Force as the council feel they may require special opinion upon in addition to that which is at their disposal from the ordinary official

  955
  sources. There is no present intention, therefore, of dissolving the council. Another meeting will shortly be held.
  Mr. SANDYS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how it is that the important function he has described has been fulfilled during the two years that have elapsed since the last meeting of the Council?
  Colonel SEELY: We have other sources of information. It is only on the larger questions of policy that we have to call a meeting to take the advice of the Council.
  Mr. SANDYS: Have there not been large and important questions of policy with regard to the recruiting of the force very much brought to the front during the we years which have elapsed since the last meeting?
  Colonel SEELY: We have had information from other sources, including the officers themselves, on this matter.
  Mr. SANDYS: Does it not seem to the right hon. Gentleman that the most useful information could have been obtained from this body of experts?
  Colonel SEELY: We have heard from them all individually.
  Mr. MEYSEY-THOMPSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this Council has not been called?
  Colonel SEELY: Because I have just got to the War Office.

  Colonel Morgan (Directorships).
  Captain CLIVEasked the Under-Secretary for War which of his ten directorships Colonel Morgan, C.B., D.S.O., is to be allowed to retain; if so, the names of the companies; and whether Colonel Morgan has yet taken up his duties at the War Office?
  Colonel SEELY: Colonel Morgan has now resigned all his directorships, and ho has been instructed to take up his duties at the War Office at once.
  Captain CLIVE: Do we understand that he will do so before he takes up his duties?
  Colonel SEELY: I assume so; that is always the case.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: What is he to be paid? Is the salary still to be £300 a year?
  Colonel SEELY: Yes.

  Air Battalion.
  Mr. SANDYSasked whether it is proposed to provide winter accommodation on Salisbury Plain for the officers and men of the Air Battalion?
  Colonel SEELY: The answer is in the affirmative.
  Mr. SANDYS: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state of what character this accommodation is going to be?
  Colonel SEELY: I cannot exactly say. It will be suitable accommodation.
  Mr. SANDYSasked why, when it was officially announced that the Bristol biplanes were, to be delivered by the company in April, two of these machines were on the 7th instant still in the sheds of the Bristol Company on Salisbury Plain awaiting the fitting of the engines; what was the cause of the two months' delay; and whether the biplanes in question have since been delivered to the War Office authorities?
  Colonel SEELY: Two of these aeroplanes have not yet been delivered owing to the great difficulty which the Bristol Company have experienced in obtaining the Renault engines with which the machines are to be fitted. The engines have now been delivered to the company, and it is hoped that, the aeroplanes will be ready in a few days.
  Mr. SANDYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fitting of Renault engines to Bristol biplanes is in the nature of an experiment, and that the others are mostly fitted with the Gnome engine?
  Colonel SEELY: I saw the manager of the Bristol company about the matter today, and I do not think there will be any further difficulty about it.
  Mr. SANDYSasked how many of the officers belonging to the Air Battalion are actually engaged in aeroplane work and, of such officers, how many are provided with Government aeroplanes and how many are employing machines purchased at their own expense?
  Colonel SEELY: Five officers of the Air Battalion are at present actually engaged in aeroplane work on Salisbury Plain. Government aeroplanes are provided for all.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL.

    EMPLOYERS' CONTRIBUTION IN CASES OF INFIRMITY.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether representations have been made to him that in the case of those suffering from some infirmity, such as total or partial blindness, the provisions in the Second Schedule of the Insurance Bill, demanding a higher contribution towards their insurance by the employer in proportion to the lower wages paid to them, will make employment less easy for them to obtain; and whether he will consider the possibility of exempting such cases of infirmity from the operation of that schedule?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Lloyd George): I will consider the hon. Member's suggestion, but I fear I feel doubts as to its practicability.

    FRIENDLY SOCIETIES (MEMBERS' CONTRIBUTIONS).
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether, in the case of a friendly society or branch being in a strong financial position and having accumulated funds, such society or branch may, under Clause 55 (c) of the Insurance Bill, relieve its members from the full payment of the contribution laid down in the Second Schedule of 4d. per male employed contributor and 3d. per female, so long as the society or branch by such part payment of members' contributions remains actuarily capable of paying the benefits required under the State insurance scheme, or are these contributions compulsory upon all employed contributors under any circumstances?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Clause 55 (c) enables reserves to be used in the manner indicated, in the case of employed contributors, but the machinery of deduction from wages must necessarily be operative in all cases.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that though the machinery of deduction must be used, the contribution might be less, not only of existing members, but also of members who come into the scheme?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is a question of the application of reserves. Under Clause 55, the 4d. may be refunded from the funds brought in by the member himself.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: It will be a question of refunding?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, that is the suggestion.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked whether existing members of friendly societies will be debarred from receiving sick or other benefits for the first six months after the Insurance Bill comes into operation unless they pay the contribution to their society in addition to that required under the Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The waiting period of six months before receiving sickness benefit applies to existing members of friendly societies. In the great majority of cases, however, societies will, if they so desire, be enabled by means of their accumulated funds to secure their existing benefits to the members for that period, without the payment of any extra contribution.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Will that not require a considerable alteration of existing rules in a great many cases?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, I do not think so. We are able to do it under Clause 55.

    AFFILIATION OF SMALLER FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
    Viscount WOLMERasked how many friendly societies there are whose membership is less than 10,000, and what their total aggregate number of members is; and what is the estimated number of officials required to carry out the affiliation of such societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: There are approximately 6,300 societies with less than 10,000 members, and their aggregate membership is 1,240,000. With regard to the latter portion of the question, I fear it would be quite impossible to frame an estimate; but I may remind the Noble Lord that I have promised to consider Amendments with regard to the limit of numbers. I may add that the friendly societies agreed at their conference that the limit should be 5,000.
    Viscount HELMSLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these 6,000 societies have fewer than 5,000 members?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Obviously that is a question of which I ought to get notice. It involves looking into the figures supplied by the Registrar of Friendly Societies.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: May I ask whether, in calculating on the limitation of societies

    959
    with 5,000 members, the right hon. Gentleman did not consider what number of societies he would bring in?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only attended a meeting, which was a very fully representative one of the friendly societies. I took no part in the discussion at all. All the other suggestions were defeated by considerable majorities, and the question of the 5,000 was carried by a considerable majority of those present. They felt it was desirable to have a limit involving a considerable number of members, otherwise it would be difficult to administer the whole scheme, and, not only that, but to distribute the benefits fairly.
    Mr. LANE-FOX: Did the right hon. Gentleman make a calculation on the basis of this 5,000 limit, or was it merely a rough shot?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was not my suggestion. The suggestion came from the friendly societies, and all these societies were represented at that conference.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Were the 6,300 small societies all registered friendly societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should not like to answer that without notice.
    Sir GILBERT PARKER: Can the right hon. Gentleman tabulate the societies, giving their proportion of members?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the hon. Member will find that there are returns of these societies, and it only involves an examination of these returns. I am not sure that I have any sources of information which are not open to the hon. Member in the Library of the House of Commons.
    Mr. BOOTH: Does the number of 6,000 odd include accumulating societies and dividing friendly societies?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it would include dividing societies as well. If the hon. Member wants an accurate return on the subject, I will make inquiries and let him know the result.

    COST OF INSURANCE COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF.
    Viscount WOLMERasked the estimated cost of the Insurance Commissioners and the staff of the Insurance Office to be instituted under the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Any such estimate must necessarily be very conjectural. The closest figure at which I have been able to arrive after a consideration of the duties of the Commissioners is from £75,000 to £100,000.
    Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: How many commissioners does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate appointing?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I answered a similar question the other week. I think it would be undesirable at the present stage to make up our minds on that point until, at any rate, we have got the Bill partly through Committee. It depends very largely upon the view the House takes as to, I will not say the interests that ought to be represented, but the class of experts who ought to be on. I think it is better not to make up our minds until we have made some progress with the Bill in Committee.
    Lord BALCARRES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the personnel immediately required, apart from the commissioners, in view of the fact that 6,300 schemes will have to be prepared before next May?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Certainly, if the Noble Lord will put a question down. It is very difficult to deal with all these matters in the time at our disposal for answering questions. I shall be happy during the course of the discussion in Committee to give an answer on the point if he will give me notice.

    LOST CARDS.
    Major WHITEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under the National Insurance scheme, in the event of an employé electing to keep his own card and then losing it, he proposes to allow the word of the employer as proof that he has paid up his due contributions and those of the employé?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It will be for the Insurance Commissioners to make regulations as to the issue, sale, custody, or delivery up of books or cards and the replacement of books or cards which have been lost or defaced?

    PREMIUMS ON ALLOWANCES IN KIND.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether a regular allowance to an employed contributor under the National Insurance Bill of milk, potatoes, coal, or any other perquisites in addition to cottage

    961
    accommodation, agreed upon at the time of engagement as a condition of service, will be taken into account in fixing the amount of premium payable by such contributor?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: For the purposes of the scale which determines in what proportions the sum to be paid in respect of an employed contributor is to be paid by his employer and himself, the wages "or other remuneration" of the contributor will be taken.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman anticipates that any considerable number, or, in fact, any at all, of the English agricultural labourers who are regularly employed will come below the 15s. limit?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think it very likely that in just a few English counties there may be a certain number who may come under that scale.

    AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS' COTTAGE RENTS.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked how it is proposed to assess, for the purposes of the National Insurance Bill, the annual value of an agricultural labourer's cottage occupied rent free, or the difference between its economic rent and that actually paid; and whether such annual value or difference, as the case may be, will be added to the labourer's weekly wages in order to ascertain the amount of premium payable by him and his employer respectively?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Calculations of the value of emoluments in kind already have to be made for the purposes of the Old Age Pensions Act, and I anticipate no special difficulty in this respect under the National Insurance Bill.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Will the Old Age Pensions Act be taken as a basis in every case in order to estimate the economic value of the cottage as distinct from the rent actually received from it?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should think we will arrive at it by that same process in much the same way as on the calculation under the Old Age Pensions Act.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is it not the fact, I speak as a member of an old age pensions committee, that for the purpose of the Old Age Pensions Act the actual rent is taken into account and not the economic value of the cottage?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I could not answer that question.

    STATISTICAL INFORMATION.
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked (1) whether any calculations have been made to show that the reserve values of spinsters on marriage will, after accumulation during marriage, suffice for the reinsurance at original rates of widows who subsequently become employed persons; and whether these reserve values at date of marriage can be published, together with any data as to the probability of subsequent re-entry into the scheme; (2) whether, from the calculations made in connection with the National Insurance Bill, he can state, even approximately, what is the calculated average age at marriage of insured spinsters; what proportion of those originally insured become widows, divorced, or legally separated, and at what average age; what proportion of these widows, divorced, or legally separated would ultimately become employed persons within the meaning of the first part of the National Insurance Bill; and what proportion of these females ultimately remarry; and (3) whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention has been drawn to the desire of the Manchester Unity of Odd fellows that a supplementary report as to certain matters should be obtained from the Government actuaries; and whether he intends to meet the wishes of that society in this respect?
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDasked if there are figures available to show the proportion of widows who return to industry?
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) what are the estimated average amounts required in each of the fifteen years after the passing of the National Insurance Bill to provide the difference between the reserve values referred to in Clause 36 (2) (re) of the Bill initially credited to the separate account and the transfer values which will be required on discharge of the men to civil life referred to in Clause 36 (3); and (2) if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will publish the data, as supplied by the War Office and the Admiralty to Messrs. Hardy and Wyatt, containing the number and ages of the men in the Army and Navy who will come within the provisions of Clause 36 of the National Insurance Bill?
    Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSONasked whether any calculations have been made

    963
    showing that the suspension of insurance to spinsters on marriage according to the National Insurance Bill will suffice, after accumulation during marriage, to provide the necessary reserves for those who subsequently become widows and resume their insurance as employed persons; and, if so, will he lay those calculations upon the Table of the House?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: These questions all relate to actuarial information, and the hon. Members have been good enough to postpone them from previous days at my request. As my hon. Friend, one of my colleagues on the Board of Treasury, stated in reply to the hon. Member for Salisbury on the 26th June, I shall be glad to obtain for the information of the House any further actuarial calculations which are likely to be of material value for the purposes of the discussion of the Bill and for which there is a desire among any considerable body of Members of the House. But, having regard to the great amount of time and labour involved in actuarial calculations and to the necessity for all the subsidiary calculations being entrusted to the same actuaries who made the original report, I think it most important that the calculations undertaken should be strictly limited to those which satisfy the conditions to which I have referred. I would suggest that hon. Members who have put down questions of this character should see me privately on the subject, and I should in that case be very glad to discuss the matter with a view to agreeing upon the information which it is most desirable to obtain.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: As regards the questions I have put down, may I ask whether the actuaries have not already got that information, and how they can possibly have made the calculations for Clause 36 without them?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The same thing applies to the questions put down by the hon. Gentleman as to others. It is not a question of whether or not we have got the information. Most of the questions present these matters in a different form from that on which the actuaries have made their calculations. We have really got the material, but, after all, we have only got two actuaries who have to be personally responsible for the answers. I suggest that in those circumstances it is quite impossible for them to be responsible. It is far better, that these things should
    964
    be discussed in the first instance with a view to ascertaining which are the figures to which the House attaches importance. It is quite impossible for the actuaries to answer every question, put by hon. Members. There ought to be some understanding as regards the general character of the questions. May I also point out that I suggested two months ago that there should be a conference between the various sections of the House and the Government in reference to suggestions for amendments, and the actuaries would be present to answer all questions put to them by hon. Members. I made that proposal two months ago, and although I have repeated it over and over again, there has been no response up to the present time.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I suppose I would be out of order in following the right hon. Gentleman, but I ask him whether he will publish the data which has already been supplied by the War Office and Admiralty, and whether in view of the fact that this cannot entail any calculations upon the actuaries, he cannot publish the data now?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am in a position to publish it, but I want to point out that before I decide I should like to know to which of the questions the House attaches importance. I think it would be far better to publish the information in the form of a Paper rather than by question and answer across the floor of the House, because it would involve lengthy answers. Therefore, I still adhere to my suggestion that it would be far better to have a conference.
    Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he remembers that I have boon asking for information during the last week?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Gentleman is not the only Member of the House who has been asking for information of this kind, and I have suggested that hon. Members should come to some sort of agreement with regard to the points upon which they require information.
    Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALD: With reference to the question which I have put down, is it not a fact that it raises one of the most important questions under the Bill, and may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how he imagines we can come, and meet him and discuss things with him if we have no information?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I do not think my hon. Friend understood the answer which I gave. It had reference to the supply of information in the first instance, and not to discussion. My suggestion was that hon. Members should agree first of all upon the character of the questions with regard to which they want information. It is perfectly obvious that we cannot give answers to fifty actuarial questions with only two actuaries to deal with them. I suggest to my hon. Friend and to hon. Members opposite that they should come to my room, and that they should agree upon the questions on which they want information.

    FISHERMEN'S CONTRIBUTIONS.
    Mr. SHIRLEY BENNasked if fishermen whose pay is not in the form of weekly wages but derived solely from a share in the results will have to pay the employer and employés' contributions in order to obtain the benefit under the National Health Insurance Bill?
    Colonel SEELY (for the Chancellor of the Exchequer): If there is a contract of service, a fisherman in the circumstances described would be an employed contributor.

    Postage Stamps.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what is the total face value of adhesive postage stamps manufactured at Somerset House since the establishment of the plant?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The total face value is £296,000.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not a fact that the penny stamps manufactured at Somerset House have had to be withdrawn owing to the bad state of the stamps?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not aware of that.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what has been the daily average face value of the rejected stamps delivered by Messrs. Harrison at Somerset House since the 22nd June, 1911?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: None of the stamps delivered at Somerset House since the date mentioned have been rejected.
    Major ARCHER-SHEE: Is it not the case that these stamps are rejected on the authority of the foreman porter or warehouseman, and not on the authority of a responsible official?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I really could not answer that question without some sort of notice.
    Major ARCHER-SHEEasked what is the amount expended up to date in the purchase of machinery and plant used for the manufacture of adhesive postage stamps at Somerset House; and how many men are at present employed in the manufacture of these stamps?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The amount expended is £l,563. Two men are employed.

    Undeveloped Land Duty.
    Mr. LANE-FOXasked in how many cases demands for Undeveloped Land Duty, where sufficient time has not elapsed for notice to be given by the owner to the existing tenant, have been made by the Commissioners; in how many cases such demands have been withdrawn on the protest of the owner; whether such demands have in many cases been acceded to; and, in such cases, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to do with the money so illegally obtained?
    Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am unable to furnish the information asked for in the first part of the question; the answer to the second part of the question is 153; as regards the third and fourth parts it is of course impossible to say in how many cases duty has been paid in ignorance of the provisions of Section 17 (5) of the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910, but upon the true facts being established to the satisfaction of the Commissioners the duty paid in error will be refunded.

    Trinidad (Oil Company No. 1,509).
    Mr. POINTERasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to an oil company, No. 1,509, registered in Trinidad on 1st June, 1910, with a capital of £200,000 in £20 shares; whether among the seven original shareholders are Mr. Gordon Mazeley, clerk to the Hon. R. S. Aucher Warner, then acting Attorney-General, and Mr. W. A. Murray, clerk to the Hon. L. A. Wharton, then acting Solicitor-General; whether neither Mazeley nor Murray were in receipt of a salary exceeding £100 per year; and, if so, will he cause inquiry to be made with a view to ascertain whether they are mere figure-heads, or whether in reality they were used to cover up the fact that officials of the Government were using their official positions to further private financial transactions?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I have no information as to the company alluded to. Even if the facts are as alleged, they do not warrant the inference suggested in the last part of the question, but as my hon. Friend has raised the point I will refer it to the Governor for his report.

    Malta.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether the Secretary for the Colonies is aware of the dissatisfaction existing in the Island of Malta consequent upon the appointment of the two members of the Legislative Council to the Executive Council, one of whom was appointed contrary to the wishes of the majority of the elected members of the Legislative Council; whether he is aware that owing to the dissatisfaction upon that and other questions there is a danger that the elected members will again resign; whether he can hold out hopes that in the near future constitutional reform will be given; and whether he will shortly lay Papers upon the Table of the House dealing with the political conditions of Malta?
    Mr. HARCOURT: No expressions of dissatisfaction with the appointments to which my hon. Friend refers have reached me, nor have I yet heard that the elected members propose to resign. I cannot hold out any expectation of further constitutional changes in Malta in the near future. Papers on the subject of the political condition of Malta were laid in July of last year (Cd. 527), and I do not think that the subsequent correspondence is of sufficient importance to call for publication at present.
    Mr. POINTERasked whether the Colonial Secretary has received information from the Government of Malta with regard to the new penal code which has been introduced by that Government, one feature of which is the application for the first time in Malta of the punishment of hard labour for the offence of contravention or misdemeanour, carrying with it the loss of franchise; whether, seeing that the elected members being in a minority on the legislative council and on the executive council, though opposed to it, cannot prevent it becoming law, he will consider the advisability of disallowing it as an Ordinance which has been passed against the will of the Maltese people as expressed by their elected representatives?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I have not yet received from the Governor of Malta the report on this subject which I requested him to furnish, but I will remind him of my request.

    Tongan Islands (Kautaka Company).
    Mr. POINTERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a native association or company in the Tongan Islands, called the Kautaka, whose business has been wrecked by the alleged unlawful acts of the Consul-General, Mr. W. Telfer Campbell, has served writs upon Mr. Campbell and also upon the Auditor-General, Mr. Roberts; further, whether he is aware that in consequence of the issue of the writs Mr. Mahaffy, the Assistant High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, has threatened to deport Mr. Cameron, the president of the Kautaka, informing him that he could be deported without any reason being assigned; and whether he will state under what Order in Council the power is given to deport a British resident in the Pacific without the person deported being informed as to the reason of such summary proceedings?
    Mr. HARCOURT: I am aware, as I informed my hon. Friend, in reply to his question on the 31st May, that legal proceedings are being taken by Mr. Cameron, but I have no information to the effect that he had been threatened with deportation. The manner in which proceedings for deportation may be taken against British residents in the Pacific is laid down in Section 111 of the Pacific Order in Council, 1893.

    Parr Mount Boys' School (St. Helens).
    Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Board of Education why notice has been given that the Parr Mount Boys' School, St. Helens, will not be recognised in future; whether he is aware that the health of the children attending it has been excellent, the standard of instruction extremely high, and that for the last five years the percentage of attendance has been 95.2, 93.7, 95.1, 94.1, and 95 respectively; what provision will be made for the teachers; and how much it is estimated that the new schools required in their place will cost?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): No such notice has yet been given. The premises are over-crowded and seriously defective,

    969
    and the site is so restricted that it appears to be impossible to make them satisfactory for their present numbers. The Board have advised the managers accordingly and have called attention to specific defects, and especially to the serious risk of injury to the children in case of fire. It will not be possible to recognise the premises indefinitely for their present numbers or, without improvement, for a smaller number. The Board have, however, advised the managers of the improvements necessary to admit of the recognition of the premises for a further period for a single department. I am not aware of anything abnormal in the health of the children or the standard of instruction. The statement in the question as to the percentage of attendance at the school is substantially accurate. There does not appear to be any reason why the teaching staff should be adversely affected as ample notice will be given of any decision to remove the school from the grant list. No proposal for the replacement of the school is before the Board, and I am not, therefore, in a position to give an estimate of the expenditure which would be involved.

    Export of Worn-out Horses.
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any recent report on the conditions under which the traffic in worn-out horses from this country for slaughter on the Continent is carried on; and will he consider whether it will be more humane to require that the animals be slaughtered prior to shipment?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Edward Strachey): The Board receive weekly reports made on behalf of the Belgian and Netherlands Governments as well as special reports from their own inspectors. The Board have no authority for adopting the hon. Member's suggestion.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is very considerable mortality amongst those horses in any kind of rough weather, and whether, if he has not got authority he does not think he might ask this House for authority and that he would probably get it?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I will draw the attention of my Noble Friend to the request of the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. CHARLES BATHURST: I should like to know whether any special inquiry
    970
    has been made by the Board at eastern ports since the Diseases of Animals Act, passed last year, came into force, and which dealt with this very matter?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: As I have already stated, the Board have received special reports from their inspectors.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: Is the procedure different to what was adopted last year before the Act came into force?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: The procedure is altered in many respects.
    Mr. C. BATHURST: In this respect?
    Mr. PRETYMAN: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could tell me whether the nature of these reports is absolutely satisfactory?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: Certainly, in some cases there may be room for improvement. That is the object of having the reports.

    Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee.
    Mr. MORRELLasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether the Board has yet made its Report on the application from the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, forwarded to the Board by the Treasury in July, 1910, for a grant under the Development Act; and, if not, when they expect to do so?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to a similar question yesterday.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the report will include a recommendation that a grant be made to this committee?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: My hon. Friend will see that that does not arise out of the question, and he should give me notice.
    Mr. MORRELL: Can he tell me when the report is likely to be published?
    Sir E. STRACHEY: I do not know.

    Admiralty Contract (Fair-Wages Clause).
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the firm of Messrs. A. and J. Inglis, Pointhouse, are contractors to the Admiralty; whether he is aware that labourers employed by the firm are paid 16s. l0d. for a week of fifty-four hours; and whether he will make

    971
    inquiry into the matter with a view to securing conformity with the Fair-Wages Clause?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The firm named are contractors to the Admiralty, and inquiry is being made into the matter.

    Torpedo-Boat Destroyers (China Station).
    Mr. PRETYMANasked the dates at which the seven torpedo-boat destroyers now on the China stations were built; whether they are now fit for sea and capable of doing the work which would be required of them in war; and whether any parent ship is provided for this flotilla?
    Mr. McKENNA: The seven destroyers on the China Station were completed in the following years:—"Handy" and "Janus" in 1895, "Hart" in 1896, "Fame," "Virago" and "Whiting" in 1897, "Otter" in 1900. The "Handy," "Hart" and "Janus" are ordered to be relieved shortly by three of the River class, and consequently no further sums will be expended on their repairs. All except the "Handy" and "Hart" are fit for sea and capable of doing the work required of them in war. They do not require a parent ship, as they are based on the dockyard.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask whether there is any peculiarity about the dockyard at Hong Kong that makes it better than other dockyards, since in ether parts of the world a parent ship is necessary; and if such a ship is necessary at Harwich, why is not necessary at Hong Kong?
    Mr. McKENNA: It is a question of the mobility of the vessels. A parent ship is required at Harwich for the service which destroyers have to perform, but the service they are called on to perform in China and the circumstances are entirely different.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I further ask whether all those destroyers are not of an old, condemned class?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir.
    Mr. PRETYMAN: May I ask if they are not of a class which, over and over again, has been condemned in debate in this House?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir; they have not been condemned.
    Mr. ASHLEY: Are we to understand that the German Government replace destroyers after twelve years' service?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has stated that frequently in the House. The German Government have issued no orders to replace destroyers after twelve years.

    H.M.S. "Natal" (Case of Alfred East).
    Mr. BENTHAMasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the attention of the Admiralty had been called to the case of a sailor named Alfred East, His Majesty's Ship "Natal," who is a married man, with wife and two children living at Lewisham; whether he is aware that about three months ago East objected to vaccination; that the captain of the ship on which this man serves refused to allow him to go ashore in the ordinary way, but sent him on patrol duty instead; that he was refused permission to visit his home, such permission being refused when his ship's company was granted four days' leave in May; and whether he will draw the captain's attention to the fact that East has committed no offence, and direct him to cease the punishment meted out to him for acting within his rights?
    Mr. McKENNA: The attention of the Admiralty has been drawn to the case, and the commanding officer has been informed that the man had committed no offence. On receipt of this intimation the restrictions on his movements were at once withdrawn and special leave was granted to him.

    German Shipbuilding Programme.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any of the armoured units of the German programme for 1908 have yet been commissioned for service with the Fleet, and, if so, when; and whether he can stale the dates on which they wore laid down, launched, and commissioned for trials?
    Mr. McKENNA: Of the armoured units of the German programme for 1908, one, the "Thuringen," was commissioned for trials on 1st July, 1911. None have yet been commissioned for service with the Fleet. The dates of order and launch are as follows:—
    "Ostfriesland," ordered 19th April, 1908; launched 30th September, 1909.
    "Helgoland," ordered 20th June, 1908; launched 25th September, 1909.
    "Thuringen," ordered 20th June, 1908; launched 27th November, 1909.
    "Moltke," ordered 11th September, 1908; launched 7th April, 1910.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Thuringen" was commissioned last Saturday?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir. I understand that it was not commissioned for service, but for trials last Saturday. That is the information which I have received.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now give details as to the displacement, armament, engine-power, speed, etc., of the German battleship "Thuringen"?
    Mr. McKENNA: The details concerning this ship have appeared in "Nauticus" for 1911. We have no official information concerning her.

    British Naval Construction (Programme, 1911–12).
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked whether tenders have been called for for the destroyers of the programme 1911–12, and to what type the vessels proposed will belong?
    Mr. McKENNA: Tenders for a certain number of destroyers of the 1911–12 programme have been called for. It is not in the public interest to give particulars of the design at this stage.
    Mr. BURGOYNE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has asked for tenders for ships, the money for which has not yet been voted by this House?
    Mr. McKENNA: Yes. That is according to the practice of a great many years.

    British and German Cruisers.
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many effective protected or unprotected cruisers, with a 5,000 mile radius of action at economical speed, are possessed by both Germany and Great Britain?
    Mr. McKENNA: The information which the hon. Member requires as regards Germany is contained in the "Taschenbuch der Kriegsflotten," 1911, compiled by Kapitanleutnant (retired) D. Weyer. We have no official information which will enable us to check the data therein given. Great Britain possesses fifty effective protected or unprotected cruisers, with a 5,000 mile radius of action, excluding armoured cruisers.
    Mr. LEE: Would the right hon. Gentleman arrange to have a copy placed in the
    974
    Library for the use of Members, with a translation if possible?
    Mr. McKENNA: I cannot say as to a translation. The data would have to be worked out. It only gives the coal capacity and speed, and I think the inferences one might draw might vary.

    H.M.SS. "Orion" and "Lion."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked when the "Orion" and "Lion," building at Portsmouth and Devonport respectively, are to commence their trials; and whether it is expected they will be commissioned within two years from the date of commencement?
    Mr. McKENNA: According to present arrangements, the "Orion" will begin her steam trials in September, and the "Lion" in October next. It is expected that both ships will be ready for commission twenty-five months from the date of laying down.

    H.M.S. "Monarch."
    Mr. BURGOYNEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the "Monarch" is of a different type to the "Orion," "Conqueror," and "Thunderer"?
    Mr. McKENNA: No, Sir, all four ships are being built to the same design.

    Fethard and Hook (County Wexford) Postal Delivery.
    Mr. FFRENCHasked the Postmaster-General if he will grant a Sunday delivery between Fethard and the Hook, South Wexford, as it is much needed, and as the people in that neighbourhood have been a, long time asking for it?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am having inquiry made, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

    Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill.
    Mr. BUTCHERasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to have the conventions referred to in the Preamble to the Second Peace Conference (Conventions) Bill printed and issued in a convenient form for the use of Members of this House; and whether he will arrange that this shall be done so as to give adequate time to Members for the consideration of these conventions before the Second Reading of that Bill?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): If the hon. and learned Member will refer to the answer given to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington on the 26th ultimo on the same point he will see that his wishes have already been met.

    Labour Exchange Advisory Boards.
    Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state what decision has been come to with regard to compensating members of labour exchange advisory boards for loss incurred in attending meetings of the board?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Arrangements have now been made for compensating workmen for time lost in attending the meetings of Advisory Trade Committees and Juvenile Advisory Committees, and I am causing a leaflet, showing the scale on which expenses of this kind can be recovered, to be circulated to the members of these Committees.

PRINTING OF AMENDMENTS.
Sir GEORGE TOULMIN: May I draw attention to the manner in which the amendments to the Insurance Bill are printed, and the method by which repetition of identical amendments is avoided, and may I ask you where there are several names before an amendment which name takes precedence?
Mr. SPEAKER: The House will no doubt remember that about Whitsuntide the Leader of the Opposition asked the Deputy-Speaker whether it would be possible to avoid circulating a great mass of paper by omitting duplications and reduplications of identical amendments. I have now given instructions to print the names on the amendments to the National Insurance Bill in a novel form. It is merely an experiment, and if the House approves of it it will be continued. But I must warn the House that it will not be possible to do that on the first day on which a series of amendments is put down to a Bill which has just passed its Second Reading. Where there is time to enable the officials of the House to collate the identical amendments the matter can be done; but in order to avoid delay in the circulation of the papers it is necessary for the printer to print all the amendments as they are handed in, and so circulate
976
them to the House. There also may be some difficulty with regard to new clauses in relation to the precedence which hon. Members have. Suppose that three or four Members gave notice of identically the same clause it would not be fair that the second, third, and fourth Member should have the same precedence as the first Member who handed in the clause. If the House finds in working through the Committee stage that this new form of amendment is agreeable to it there is no reason why it should not be continued in the future.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask is it not possible to get over the difficulty which you have indicated with regard to new clauses by printing the names of the various Members who have put down new clauses in the order in which they have put them down, and it would be understood that the Member whose name was first on the list was the Member who had precedence, and so on down the whole list of Members who had handed in identical clauses? There may be some difficulty in that, but it would seem to be an easy way of getting over the difficulty which you have been good enough to indicate to the House.
Mr. SPEAKER: I should be very glad to consider any suggestion. The difficulty is: suppose that a new clause appears in the name of an hon. Member, and he is not in his place to move it, then naturally it is passed over. It would not be a fair thing to take the same clause which appears in the name of a second hon. Member who very likely had not given notice of the clause on the first day, or, indeed, perhaps not for a week or two after the first hon. Member had given notice, for by that means he would get a precedence which was not his at all. The result would be that the hon. Members who had given notices of other clauses, immediately after the hon. Member who had given the first notice, would be passed over, and first place would be given to the hon. Members whose notices were given later on. That is the difficulty.
Mr. BALFOUR: Yes. I quite see that.
Mr. BOOTH: Are we to understand that while there are several names down to an amendment the Chair will call on the first that is printed on the Paper?
Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, yes. The ordinary amendments appear in the order in. which they are put down.
Mr. LEE: Will the names be printed bracketed opposite the particular amendment?
Mr. SPEAKER: They are. If the hon. Member will look at the Paper he will see that that is so.

GERMANY AND MOROCCO.
Mr. BALFOUR: May I ask a question of the Prime Minister? My right hon. Friend, the Member for St. George's (Mr. Lyttelton), asked yesterday whether it would be possible in the public interest to make any statement with regard to foreign affairs. The Prime Minister requested that the question might be deferred to to-day. I do not know whether even to-day it would be convenient or proper for an answer to be given, but if an answer can be given I am sure that the House would be grateful.
The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): No. The matter to which the light hon. Gentleman refers is engaging the serious attention of the Government. Diplomatic communications at this moment are in progress. I do not think that I can properly say more at this moment. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will renew his inquiry on Thursday.
Mr. DAVID MASON: May I ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice? With regard to the action of Germany in Morocco, is not it the case that, under the Act of Algeciras the Inspector-General is to report to the Diplomatic Body as to taking measures for the security of the persons of foreigners, and, under Article 9, in the event of complaints, the Diplomatic Body was requested to make inquiry and draw up a report. Have such complaints been made?
The PRIME MINISTER: That is not a question that ought to be put in such a way. If the hon. Member will put it down on paper proper inquiries will be made.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
Sir HARRY VERNEY: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture a question of which I have given him private notice? Is it true that an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease has occurred at Hounslow? If so what steps have been taken in the matter?
Sir E. STRACHEY: Yes. I regret to say that foot-and-mouth disease has broken out at Blands Farm, Hounslow, Middlesex. Of the seventy-six pigs on the farm at least forty-two pigs are affected, and one heifer out of the nineteen cattle is also affected. All the animals affected and those in contact will be at once-slaughtered, and the usual steps for isolating the infected area have been taken.

NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY].
Motion made, and question proposed, "That the House to-morrow resolve itself into Committee to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions towards the cost of providing benefits conferred by any Act of the present Session to provide for Insurance against loss of Health and for the Prevention and Cure of Sickness and for Insurance against Unemployment, and for purposes incidental thereto, and of defraying the expenses of the administration of those benefits, and of the salaries and remuneration of any officers and servants appointed in pursuance of such Act, and of certain expenses incurred in the execution thereof, and of authorising the Treasury to make advances out of the Consolidated Fund and to borrow the money for such advances by the issue of Treasury Bills or Exchequer Bonds, the principal of and interest on such Exchequer Bonds to be charged on and payable out of the Consolidated Fund (King's Recommendation signified), To-morrow."—[Mr. Gulland.]
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will that be taken first to-morrow?
Mr. McKENNA: It may be taken tomorrow.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: Is it not necessary for the House to go into Committee on the National Insurance Bill under this Resolution?
MASTER of ELIBANK: Yes. That may be the case. I will communicate to my hon. Friend all the details of the case.
Resolution agreed to.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (STREET NOISES) BILL.
Captain MURRAY: I beg to ask leave to introduce the Motor Traffic (Street Noises) Bill. The Bill is specially intended

979
to remedy a grievance to which on several occasions by question and by speech I have called attention in this House. I refer to the difficulties experienced by residents in London and other urban areas in obtaining a due amount of sleep owing to the excessive and varied nature of the noises made by instruments of warning on motor vehicles. This, then, is no imaginary grievance conjured up by a disordered brain. Since I first addressed a question to the President of the Local Government Board I have received many letters from people all over London asking mo to press the matter. I venture to think that the columns of the daily Press during the last week or so are themselves sufficient proof that this matter is one that calls for immediate remedy. From all quarters of London come complaints—from eminent surgeons, doctors, business men, and others. More important still, they come from many people in London who are in feeble health, whose nerves are shattered, and for whom sleep is very difficult, if not impossible, owing to the hideous noises which the warning signals of motor-cars make during the night, and well on into the early hours of the morning. What is the remedy? I think it is quite possible that much can be done without legislation by those who use motor-vehicles; if they will compel the drivers of motor-cars to keep their cars under such control as will obviate the necessity of hooting loudly at each corner which they reach in the course of their travels. Yes, hut that is not all. One of the chief reasons militating against peaceful and restful slumber is to be found in the varied nature of the sounds which these warning instruments emit.
Shrieks, hoots, whistles, and groans are intermingled with other weird and distressing sounds, some of which recall to memory the pleasantries attendant on a rough passage across the Channel. It is to apply a remedy in respect to the varied nature of the sounds emitted by the warning instruments that I ask the House to pass to-day the First Reading of this Bill. I addressed a question yesterday to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, asking him if he would take steps to compel all motors in urban areas to use a bell as a warning note between the hours of twelve midnight and seven a.m.; and the right hon. Gentleman replied that in view of the terms of Section 3 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, legislation would be necessary
980
to give effect to my suggestion. I propose to supply the right hon. Gentleman with that legislation. It appears that he has no power to say what description of warning instrument shall or shall not be used. The purpose of this Bill, which is a very short one, and very simple, is to give powers to the Local Government Board to make regulations defining the nature of the warning devices which may or may not be used in certain areas at certain times within the twenty-four hours. I suggest under this Bill that general powers in regard to the matter should be given to the Local Government Board, and I further suggest that under those powers the President of the Local Government Board should frame regulations making it impossible, for instance, for any exhaust blown instrument to be sounded in London at any time in the twenty-four hours, and in particular during the night. The Bill would also allow the President of the Local Government Board to carry out the suggestion conveyed in my question of yesterday—to introduce some uniformity into the sounds omitted by these instruments by compelling motor vehicles in London during the night to carry and sound a bell. Those are the main, and, in fact, the only provisions of this Bill. I trust, in view of the great annoyance caused to the many residents in urban areas owing to the excessive hooting of motor-cars, that the House will give mo the First Reading of this Bill.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Murray, Mr. Fell, Sir Henry Havelock Allan, and Mr. Whitehouse. Presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Thursday, 20th July, and to be printed.

SUPPLY.— [Fifteenth Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

  SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL—(VOTE 8, SECTION 1).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum not exceeding £3,541,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which

  981
  will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Mr. LEE: I understand that the First Lord of the Admiralty desires to defer the speech which he will doubtless make upon this Vote, and therefore it devolves upon me to draw his attention to certain points which I hope he will reply to later on. It is peculiarly appropriate and opportune that debate upon this Vote should follow immediately on the discussion which we have had on the Declaration of London. In the course of that Debate we were dealing mainly with theory, and our position at sea, particularly in regard to the defence of our trade routes. To-day on this Vote we have to consider what are the actual facts of the position in regard to our supremacy at sea; what, in fact, whatever may be the results of the Declaration of London, are the material resources at the present time at the disposal of the Admiralty, or under their programmes, to deal with the situation which has been created. The vital lesson which was contained in the Memorandum issued earlier in the year under the authority of the First Sea Lord has been greatly reinforced by the Debates which have taken place on the Declaration of London. I refer to the statement of the First Sea Lord at the commencement of his Memorandum, that the really serious danger this country has to guard against in war is not invasion, but the interruption of our trade and the destruction of our merchant shipping. I do not think that anyone will dispute that truth, however much they may regret the particular form in which it was enunciated to the country. We are not here to-day to engage in this abstruse question as to what would be the position or possible means of redress to neutrals under the Declaration of London. What I want the Committee to consider is this: What provision is the Admiralty capable of making with the material resources at its disposal to enable it to protect our trade against interruption and destruction when we are belligerents, which is a condition to which the Declaration of London does not apply? I hope to be able to show before I sit down that the strength of the cruisers that the Admiralty has at present at its disposal, or will have under the programme laid before the House, is totally insufficient.
  Everybody would agree, particularly after what has been stated in the last few days, that it is the first few weeks of a war
  982
  in which we might be engaged as belligerents that will be vital as far as our food supplies are concerned, and it is not merely a question as to whether the food supply is so unsafe that starvation, as a matter of course, would follow from its temporary interruption, but a question as to whether a state of uncertainty, amounting to panic, would be created, and as the result of that state of panic, whether reasonable or unreasonable, the price of food in this country would go up to a point where the poorest of the poor of our population would find it impossible to provide themselves with the necessary food to sustain life. That is the real problem that has to be considered, and what I want to ascertain, if I can, is how is the Admiralty going to deal with it? There are only two possible ways of dealing with it, so far as I can see; there was the way which, I am afraid, now is no longer possible: that was the theoretical possibility of our having succeeded by diplomatic negotiations in getting all food consigned to this country declared non-contraband when this difficulty would not arise. Now we know that that is impossible; if it was impossible before it has been made doubly impossible by the Declaration of London. In the view of many of us, the position has been made worse because the question as to whether food should or should not, under certain conditions, be declared conditional contraband, will now be left to the individual temperament of hostile naval commanders, who are practically incited in the best "Don't-nail-his-ears-to-the-pump" style to so construe this instrument which the Government propose to act upon. For that reason, whilst I have no doubt that the Declaration of London will save a great deal of trouble to the Foreign Office, which is probably its only advantage, it certainly will not save trouble to the Admiralty, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord must have recognised that fact himself. It places responsibility upon the Admiralty, which I do not say for a moment they wish to shirk, but which is the greatest responsibility that can possibly be placed upon a Department of State, and whilst it has been alleged that ii has the possible advantage from the point of view of national defence that it is now impossible, according to the Declaration of London, to have all food declared contraband of war, strictly speaking from the national defence point of view, I do not think it has such advantage, and I will tell the Committee why.

  983
  If it had been possible to declare all food contraband of war there would have been such an outcry and state of panic as would inevitably determine the right hon. Gentleman to enormously strengthen our fleet. We should at any rate know where we were. Now we are in entirely a fallacious position, as I believe, of partial security with regard to our food supplies, whilst, as a matter of fact that position of security does not exist, but the agitation with which the right hon. Gentleman would be faced to strengthen his fleet and the number of his cruisers, if all food had been declared contraband, is no longer to be created because it will be stilled by belief in this instrument, and there will be no panic and no demand because there will be general misunderstanding of the situation, which will extend to the man in the street and make him inclined to acquiesce in the present state of affairs. I pass from that feature of the situation to come to what is really the only practical remedy when we are belligerents to ensure that cur food supply should not be interfered with, and that is the adequate policing of our trade routes. I contend that is an absolute impossibility with the present strength of the cruisers the Admiralty possess, and therefore I am justified in urging upon the Admiralty that their programme in regard to cruisers is totally insufficient.
  4.0 P.M.
  The First Lord of the Admiralty, in the speech which he made the other day, gave, no doubt unintentionally, quite a false impression to the House of the real situation with regard to this matter, because he did not make clear to the House the peril which we have got to guard against in this matter. It is not merely the particular peril from recognised hostile cruisers, but it is the peril arising from attacks upon our trade routes by converted merchantmen, and the fact that he dismissed that rather airily by saying we did not recognise the legality of this conversion, and hinting, in fact, that these ships may, if so converted, be treated practically as pirates, does not take us very far. The Admiralty, in order to minimise the danger of the situation, by the vague threats indulged in, that they would know how to deal with a situation of this kind when it arises, does not mean very much. They cannot do more than sink the offending ship, unless they go to the extreme length of hanging a few of the foreign officers as pirates. Even that would not have a material effect, because a nation
  984
  engaged in a life-and-death struggle with us, and knowing the only way to bring us to our knees would be to create a state of panic and starvation in the country, which would paralyse the hands of our Government, would not be likely to stick at difficulties of that kind, with regard to the sinking of their ships, or even the possible death of officers engaged in this hazardous service. Before passing from that point there are a few other small technical difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman raised which, I think, are really nonexistent with regard to the arming of merchantmen. He raised, first of all, the question of merchantmen having to be specially constructed in order to carry guns. He knows perfectly well that is not the case. It is not the least necessary that merchantmen should be specially constructed in order to carry a sufficient force of Artillery to be able to destroy unarmed merchantmen on the high seas. It is like the case of a man with a revolver against the unarmed crowd. If a merchantman has a gun—and it need not be a very heavy one—and ammunition on board that gun can be rigged up without any very elaborate arrangement beforehand in such a way as to enable that ship to do immense damage upon our trade routes.
  In regard to coaling we have been told that vessels would be unable to coal without going into port. We all know that that is not the case, because coaling at sea is a most familiar operation, and a Power engaged in this practice would not neglect the provision of colliers to enable these ships to be coaled at sea without any material difficulty. Then there is the policy adopted by foreign Governments of arranging for a proportion of their fastest merchantmen to have guns and ammunition on board in times of peace in order that if the necessity arose they may be converted into warships in time of war without going into port. The Civil Lord, in a previous Debate on Vote A of the Navy Estimates, said there was not a tittle of evidence to show that any foreign Power was adopting this policy. I do not know what information was at his disposal when he spoke, but I doubt whether the First Lord of the Admiralty would say that there is not a tittle of evidence to-day to show that that policy has been adopted. Information has reached me from a source which is usually very reliable—the right hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am mistaken in this, but I have done my best to verify it—that in the case of three great

  985
  Powers on the Continent of Europe, Germany, Austria and Italy, provision has been made by their respective Admiralties that certain fast ships of various lines are to be equipped by carrying actually in their holds at all times guns and ammunition in addition to carrying a certain proportion of officers and men belonging to the Navy reserve.
  I believe in the case of Italy it has been publicly announced by the Minister of Marine that all vessels reserved for the naval service are as a matter of fact to carry at all times these guns and ammunition on board in case they should be needed in the event of a sudden outbreak of war to take their place as auxiliary cruisers. That is the information which has reached me, and therefore there is a good deal more than a tittle of evidence to support this statement. If this is not the case, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us so, and perhaps he will tell us whether he has any accurate source of information on this question. The defence which was put forward in the Debate yesterday was that these particular ships are all known to the Admiralty, and therefore constitute very little danger, but I do not think that defence will really hold water. Whether they are known or not if they are actually at sea as they might be on one of our principal trade routes, and if, moreover, they are free to act as they will now be free to act, not being forbidden to act under the Declaration of London, and, indeed, will act with a tacit international consent—
  Mr. McKENNA: No.
  Mr. LEE: I do not want to go into that question. It was debated at length yesterday, and I shall not be in order in going into it at greater length. I think I am quite justified in saying that these vessels will act with a tacit international consent. How is the present strength of our Navy going to adequately deal with such a peril in the first few weeks of a war? The First Lord of the Admiralty told us earlier in the Session that we had an ample supply of cruisers to deal with all these emergencies. I venture to deny that statement, or at any rate he has not convinced me on that point. In any case the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used in support of his contention are somewhat misleading. He read out an amazing list of cruisers without distinction as to class possessed at the present time by this country, and he said the number was far in excess of that pos-
  986
  sessed by any other Power, and asserted that that was all we require. Whilst we may be prepared to admit, for the sake of argument, that our strength in armoured cruisers fit to operate in the battle Fleet is sufficient for the purpose of dealing with any situation which is likely to arise in home waters, and that with the help of those cruisers and our battleships we might be able to establish and maintain that supremacy in home waters which is essential to safeguard us against invasion—always supposing we are able to coax the enemy out into the open—that really does not touch the point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman which is the condition of the trade routes on which our food supply is coming to this country during the first few weeks of a war. The superiority in armoured cruisers in Home waters will not help us at all there.
  We are considering this danger to our trade routes and to our food supply from vessels which may be cruisers at a moment's notice and which may eventually be run down, but they may be able to deal us a deadly blow which may bring us to our knees at the very commencement before the cruisers we can send after them can possibly approach them. It is against that danger that I say nothing but the adequate policeing of the trade routes will suffice, and policing by swift, well-armed modern cruisers—not necessarily armoured cruisers of the second or third class protected types, but cruisers of a class of which we possess, in my view, a very insufficient number at the present time. In saying that it is perhaps necessary that I should make a point of calling attention to certain figures, and here again I can only rely upon official sources of information like the Navy List and other information which is open to me. From those sources I gather that, taking the North and South Atlantic as the broad area which covers the main routes along which our food supplies come to this country, seven years ago in the year 1903 we had twenty-two cruisers operating in that area and guarding those trade routes, whilst to-day we have only six.
  We all know that the original reason for this was the new policy of concentration which became necessary on account of the growing power of other nations in European waters, and this made it essential to further safeguard this country against the danger of invasion. Whilst that policy was no doubt necessary at that time in order to safeguard this country, it does not meet

  987
  the point we are concerned with—namely, the safety of our trade routes, and it has nothing to do with the general question of the command at sea in European waters. It is quite possible we may have an absolutely overwhelming strength there, and yet the trade routes may not only be not secure, but not even as secure as they were seven years ago with a less force at our disposal. I wish to emphasise that the danger we have to guard against is not so much a military and naval danger but the effect upon the population of this country, and particularly upon our poorest classes, during the first few weeks of a war in case there should be any cause, justifiable or otherwise, for a panic and for uncertainty amongst those who undertake the carrying of our food supplies to this country.
  I do not think the First Lord of the Admiralty will deny that during the last few years there has been a great relative decline in the cruisers we have got available for the protection of our trade routes as compared with other countries. The figures which have reached me, which I believe are accurate, or at any rate approximately accurate, are that seven years ago, as compared with Germany, we had 102 effective protected or unarmoured cruisers to Germany's twenty-two, or a, superiority roughly of five to one. Now I understand the figures are, in regard to protected and unarmoured cruisers, seventy possessed by this country and thirty-five by Germany, being roughly a proportion of two to one. Therefore there is relatively a great decline, and whatever may be the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to the two-Power standard, I do not think they can claim with regard to this question of the provision of cruisers for the protection of our trade routes that a proportion of two to one as against one Power is in any sense adequate. Therefore I would urge that a larger programme of protected and unarmoured cruisers is absolutely essential if the Admiralty is to be able to carry out the responsibility which devolves upon it of safeguarding this country at the outbreak of war.
  I am glad that the Foreign Secretary in his speech yesterday did not hold out any suggestion that the passing of the Declaration of London would relieve us from the necessity of maintaining our cruiser strength. I am very glad he said that, because it has been frequently hinted in other quarters, where a reduction of arma-
  988
  ments is specially favoured, that one of the results of the passage of the Declaration of London would be that we might reduce our naval armaments; and, therefore, it is comforting to know that that view is not taken by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I go perhaps rather a little further than the right hon. Gentleman, and I suggest that not only is a reduction not possible, but that an increase is absolutely necessary. I have given several facts, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reply to my points. Before I pass away from the question of cruisers, which is a main burden of my remarks this afternoon, I should like to ask a question upon a technical point with regard to the extremely light armament which is being given to the new cruisers which are now being built by the Admiralty. I am referring to the protected and unarmoured cruisers alone for the purposes of this Debate, and an extremely light armament has been given to them as compared with the cruisers of foreign Powers they might have to meet in case of war, and indeed a light armament as compared with the armament which we understand is allotted to certain merchant vessels of foreign Powers in the event of war. This is so marked in some cases that it is possible to conceive a situation where, in the event of war, one of our fast protected or unarmoured cruisers might indeed by its speed—
  Mr. McKENNA: To which class is the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. LEE: I am referring to unarmoured cruisers, for example, of the "Blonde" class and to protected cruisers of the "Bristol" class. I am aware there is a slight improvement in this respect in later types, but I venture to say the Admiralty in the past, not only during the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, but I will be perfectly frank, and say during the last Unionist Administration, have shown a tendency to under arm the smaller class of cruiser. I think it has been almost universally admitted that the armament of the "County" class was insufficient.
  Mr. McKENNA: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say the armament of the new class is too light?
  Mr. LEE: I am not prepared to express a dogmatic opinion on that point, but I think possibly the six-inch gun is not sufficient in view of the class of ship these vessels may have to meet, but I admit the

  989
  Admiralty is making an improvement in this respect. I think the tendency of the Admiralty in late years has been to under arm their cruisers, and I do not think it is a sufficient answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say merely the experts are satisfied, because, certainly in the case of the "County" class, the experts have been proved to be wrong, and occasionally they are wrong. Before finally leaving this question of cruisers, I wish to make one more point, and that is with regard to the new naval policy of the Dominions in establishing what are in effect separate navies under the British flag. I perhaps was brought up in the older Admiralty school, which frowned at the establishment of separate navies, and I still cling to that theory, but at the same time we have got to recognise the facts, and we have got to recognise that public sentiment in the Dominions is in favour of these separate navies and that they would not undertake to co-operate on any other terms. We have, therefore, got to make the best of it, and I think a great deal of good work will result from the Dominion navies if they can be persuaded that their primary duty in a general scheme of the defence of the Empire is to undertake, as far as their resources and as far as their location permits, the defence of the particular trade routes which lie in their vicinity. By undertaking that duty they can greatly relieve some of the burdens which at present rests upon the Mother-country, but until they have shown themselves capable of doing that and until they are in a position to do it I maintain the present supply of our cruisers is inadequate, and that a largo programme must be proceeded with by the Homo Government.
  I should like to make an observation with regard to what is known as the policy of scrapping. Here again I am prepared to take up a strictly non-party attitude, and to admit, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes, that possibly in the past the policy of scrapping may have been carried too far, but at the time the great scrapping of cruisers took place—I think in the year 1904–5—there were very urgent and imperative considerations. If all these vessels were maintained, we had insufficient dock space for them, we had insufficient personnel to man them, and all the new vessels which were coming on, and the cost of repairs was very great. Balancing those disadvantages against the advantages of retaining them, I think we came to a right conclusion, and scrapping
  990
  was the better policy. The Dominion naval policy had not then been formulated, and I venture to say now it would be as well if the Admiralty would go very slow in this matter of scrapping, and would consider whether, in the present state of development of these Dominion navies, it would not be of great advantage to them, as well as a great advantage to us, to transfer those obsolescent cruisers, which are, perhaps, not efficient for Fleet action in home waters, to them, if necessary as a gift, in order that they might be utlised in the first place for training purposes, and secondly, for the defence of the trade routes in the immediate vicinity of those Dominions. I think that is a reasonable policy, and one which would be advantageous both to the Mother-country and' to the Dominions concerned.
  We admit the Admiralty has awakened to the condition in which we are placed by the rapid obsolescence of the whole of our first batches of destroyers, and that they have done a good deal during the last two years to remedy the situation which was bound to arise when those vessels had been withdrawn, but even there I do not consider they are doing enough. I think the right hon. Gentleman is still clinging to the belief that the destroyers which are more than twelve years old— practically all those which are known as the 30-knotters—are still really efficient for war purposes in European waters. No expert I have been able to approach on the subject is of that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman clings to it in this House, but I am not so sure he really entertains it in his heart. He has to put a brave face on these matters until he can get the number of destroyers he needs, and we are anxious to support him in getting them. The situation, according to the figures at my disposal, is this: We have at present destroyers not exceeding ten years old, 81, to Germany's 79, and according to the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, which he gave in this House a few months ago, in the spring of 1913 we shall have 129 destroyers under twelve years of age to Germany's 108. That is an exceedingly small margin, one which I believe is totally inadequate, and one which has been defended largely as the result of the habit in which the Admiralty and the Government have fallen now in these matters of comparing our strength in naval power with one other Power only, which is surely insufficient. Even in this matter of destroyers, it is necessary the Admiralty should make a much greater effort.

  991
  I do not apologise for having confined the whole of my remarks this afternoon to the question of cruisers and the protection of our trade routes, because that subject has come up in a peculiarly acute form as the result of the Debate within the last few days, but I must say one word with regard to battleships. It has been a common complaint among experts that during the last few years in these Debates we have thought of nothing but battleships, and that the other component parts of the Fleet have been altogether ignored. I do not think that complaint can be properly directed against me this afternoon, but I think it was natural, and indeed necessary, that during the last few years we should have concentrated upon our battle fleet, because, after all, if that is not sufficiently strong all the cruisers in the world will not maintain our position. With regard to the battleship position, I can only repeat what I said a few months ago on the Provision Vote. In my opinion, the position is still extremely unsatisfactory. There are no new facts as far as I know except that the Austrian programme is steadily materialising and is no longer the phantom which some hon. Gentlemen seem to represent it. I can only repeat what I said in the Provision Debate, that as far as the published programmes and intentions go some time in the year 1914 we in this country shall be faced with a position where we shall have only twenty-nine or thirty vessels of the "Dreadnought" type available for the purpose of defence in European waters as compared with an approximately equal number possessed by the Triple Alliance. That is not a satisfactory position, and I would remind the Committee that neither the First Lord of the Admiralty nor the Government have ever answered our point with regard to the necessary detachment of a certain proportion of our force of "Dreadnoughts" to the Mediterranean to meet the new situation which has arisen from the creation of "Dreadnought" squadrons by both the Austrian and Italian navies.
  I am not talking of the present moment, I am directing my argument to the time when the present published programmes of these Powers, including our own, will mature, and I say when that moment arises, it is necessary we shall detach a considerable squadron of our "Dreadnoughts" to the Mediterranean, and that will leave us with a force in the North Sea which I think will be inadequate to pro-
  992
  tect the position of this country in the event of war with our chief naval rival. Therefore, without asking the right hon. Gentleman at this moment to do what I suppose would be impossible for him to do —to increase his programme for this year —I do renew the plea that he should not postpone until the last days of the financial year the commencement of the ships which will, I presume, be finally sanctioned by the House of Commons this afternoon. I would remind the Committee, with regard to the battleships of these programmes that the first instalment for each of the German vessels is £480,000, whereas the first instalment for our vessels in the ease of the dockyard ships is from £170,000 to £180,000, and in the case of contract ships only £75,000. I say the Admiralty is throwing away the great initial advantage which it claims in its power to construct ships more rapidly. It is no good being able to construct ships more rapidly as compared with your rivals, if you postpone the commencement of them until eight months or so after they have commenced. It really confers no advantage upon us whatsoever. I think it is a mistake to announce what your programme is going to be until you are in a position to commence it. I think that is the cause of most of the difficulties in which we find ourselves. First, there is the abandonment by the Government of the two-Power standard, and the refusal to set up anything in its place. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty —and this is the first time I have had the pleasure of addressing him as right hon.— must be tired of hearing my expression of opinion on this point. But I stick to it. I still more regret the habit which the Government has got into of expressing their naval strength in the terms of a one-Power standard only. I think it was very alarming in the course of the Debate last night to note the way in which the Foreign Secretary seemed to admit that it was impossible for us to maintain any longer our relative naval strength in regard to other Powers. He seemed to take it as a matter which ought to be recognised that it was not possible for us to maintain the position in these matters we had hitherto occupied. That was the sense of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. May I quote a few words:—
  "But the conditions have changed, and are changing. I put this point. Your two-Power standard, your three-Power standard, if you have it, is no longer going to be a world-Power standard, and it is not going to be possible for any Power to have a world-Power standard. That has been the increasing tendency of

  993
  the growth of fleets generally, and that has increased the risk that in time of war neutrals might interfere with our belligerent action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1911, col. 869.]
  I need not quote further. The right hon. Baronet recognised, or seemed to accept, the impossibility of our being able to maintain in the future the relative naval supremacy we have possessed in the past. We on this side, at any rate, have not yet come to recognise that there is any inability on our part to maintain the two-Power standard, and I claim we have to maintain that position whatever it may cost. I hear a great deal just now about the advantages of national insurance in a domestic sense. We all agree that that is a highly desirable reform, but I submit we have no right to spend money upon national insurance in a domestic sense until we have adequately provided for our national insurance in a national sense. That must be the first claim on the finances of this country, because, without it, unless we have absolute national insurance in a national sense it is useless for us to proceed with any certainty with any scheme of domestic or social reform.
  Captain MURRAY: With reference to the remarks which fell just now from the last speaker, as to what the Foreign Secretary stated last night regarding the impossibility nowadays for this country to maintain its relative position with the naval strength of other countries, I will not labour the point, but I think I am right in saying that it is impossible to maintain a world-Power standard, which is something different from the two-Power standard. I rose, however, to refer very briefly to the matter of secondary armaments in our battleships. I have on previous occasions, both in the year before last and last year, during the Debates on the Naval Estimates, pointed out that, in my humble opinion, we, in this country, were making a great mistake in putting, if I may use the term, all our eggs into one basket in this particular respect—the adoption in all our latest battleships, the ''Dreadnoughts," etc., of the all big-gun principle. The idea seems to be prevalent in many quarters that in these days only a "Dreadnought" can engage a "Dreadnought"—that only a ship of the "Dreadnought" type, or post-"Dreadnought" type, can engage a ship of that particular type, and that a pre-"Dreadnought," such as the "King Edward," pitted against a "Dreadnought," would speedily be put out of action. I believe that idea to be erroneous. It is disputed by many distinguished naval officers. I
  994
  do not propose to pit one set of opinions against another in this naval matter. It is always invidious to do so. But I think I may say without fear of contradiction that naval opinion is by no means unanimous in respect of the alleged superiority of the all big-gun type of vessel over vessels of an earlier date with a heavier secondary armament. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are certain naval officers—and I am not quite certain whether the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord Charles Beresford) is not one of them—he will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that he has advanced an opinion in respect of the advisability of having heavier secondary armaments. At any rate, it is a matter of common knowledge that there are certain distinguished naval officers who are perfectly willing at any time to take a "Lord Nelson" into action against a "Dreadnought."
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Against a first "Dreadnought."
  Captain MURRAY: Let us for one moment consider what are the chief advantages of the all big-gun type of ship. I understand that one of them is that an all big-gun type of battleship is able to fire a relatively large number of armour-piercing projectiles as compared with the earlier type of ship. En passant I would remark that these projectiles are generally described as armour-piercing, but I do not know whether they are actually so, for I believe it to be the case that there is a continuous race between projectiles and armour. At one time the projectile is ahead, and at another time the armour is ahead. I do not know whether the First Lord of the Admiralty can tell me which is leading at the present moment. However, apart from that particular point, I think it is possible to assume that at any rate from the point of view of those who are in favour of the all big-gun type of ship that this type has the advantage of being able to fire a relatively large number of armour-piercing projectiles. What I wish to submit to the Committee to-day is this— that the all big-gun type of ship labours under a disadvantage in that she has no heavy secondary armaments. We have past experience of this, although I admit there are two sides to the question, and experts differ as to the value of past experience. But let us take the all big-gun type of battleship. What do we find? We find it laid down by many experts and certainly by a very large section of naval opinion that in the battle of Tsu Shima the

  995
  chief damage done by the Japanese to the Russian battleships was by the secondary armaments of the Japanese vessels. The Russian ships owed their disablement mainly to the high explosive shells from the Japanese secondary armaments which struck rapidly and effectively against the unprotected parts of the vessels.
  I think we should take some notice of what is being done and of the policy being carried out by other countries in respect of secondary armaments. I have here what is known as the Dickinson return. I am not going to describe the armaments of the British vessels, but turning for instance to France, we find that the latest French battleships have a heavy secondary armament. Those of the "Jean Bart" type have twelve 12-inch guns and twenty-two 5.5-inch guns, which have approximately the same power as our 6-inch guns, firing an 80-lb. shell at the rate of eight rounds a minute. Then I come to Germany and I take the latest type—the "Ostfriesland" type — the "Helgoland" has twelve 12-inch guns and fourteen 5.9-inch guns. That is according to a statement in "The Times," from its Berlin correspondent. Then we come to the United States, and there again a similar state of affairs prevails. In the "Florida" type of vessel they have ten 12-inch guns, and sixteen 5-inch guns. In the "Arkansas" type of vessel of a later date they have twelve 12-inch guns and twenty-one 5-inch guns. Next we come to Japan, and we find that in the latest type building there, the "Kawachi" type, the "Settsu,'' launched in 1911, has twelve 12-inch guns, ten 6-inch guns, and ten 4.7-inch guns. We must not forget that Japan has just come victorious out of a naval war, and that being so the fact that Japan has retained heavy secondary armaments and especially 6-inch guns, should give us food for thought. The policy of Japan in this particular respect is one to which we should pay attention.
  There is only one other point to which I wish to allude this afternoon, and that is in regard to the question of the range. Let us assume that a fleet be engaged in the North Sea. What is the range of visibility there? I am not pressing the First Lord of the Admiralty on that point. It would probably be useless to do so. He would properly and rightly reply that it was not in the public interest to divulge exactly what he knows in this particular respect.
  Mr. McKENNA: Anybody knows it.
  Captain MURRAY: Then I will hazard a guess. I should say, if I were asked— it is not exactly my own opinion, but it is an opinion which I have formed after consultation with naval officers—I would hazard a guess that not more than one hundred and twenty-five days in the year in the North Sea are days upon which it would be possible to come into action at a range of over 6,000 yards.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: Oh, no.
  Captain MURRAY: The Noble Lord opposite dissents. I do not quite know what his dissent indicates, but I do know that speaking on a similar Vote earlier in this Session what he said was that there was not more than one day in three months in which it would be possible to come into action at a range of five or six miles.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I said 10,000 yards.
  Captain MURRAY: If that be so, it is only a difference of 2,000 yards. What the Noble Lord said was that "the idea of the 'Dreadnoughts' fighting actions at five or six miles distance is perfectly chimerical," and that "there is not one day in every three months in which they could fight at such a distance." These were his own words taken from his speech on the 20th March last. (OFFICIAL DEBATES, 20th March, 1911, vol. xxiii., col. 60.) At any rate, whether I am right or wrong, I do submit that there are probably a number of officers in the Navy who hold this view that there are about sixty-five days out of every hundred in which an action could not be fought at a range of over 6,000 yards in the North Sea, and I submit if that be so it does constitute a very serious factor in the consideration of this question of secondary armaments.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has pointed out a very interesting question on which there has been a great deal of difference of opinion as to the necessity for auxiliary armament, whether the all big-gun ship is the best or whether these ships should have an auxiliary armament. I think he did a very wise thing in pointing to what other nations have done, and particularly Japan, and they were certainly of opinion that they won some of their battles with the auxiliary armament. Personally, I should like to see an auxiliary armament on board our vessels. I have

  997
  always supported the doctrine of the biggest small gun and the smallest big gun, and not to have too great a range. I have had experience of command in the North Sea, and I say it is very rare that you will get a day on which you can fight an action on the supposititious range for which the "Dreadnought" was originally laid down. She was to fight an action a very long way off indeed. Now for two reasons that is a mistake. One is that at that range hitting is problematical, no matter how accurate the gun is or how well trained your men are. There enters into it, therefore, the element of doubt and of luck, and your enemy may have the luck.
  I think you will find that you will fight actions a little over the old range, about 3,000 yards up to 5,000 or 6,000 yards, and that you will get alongside the enemy's ship as soon as you can and hit him as often as you can, and that you are not going to conduct a fight away out on the horizon where it is problematical whether or not your shots will take effect. I think with regard to naval affairs this is more or less an annual farce that we go through here of criticising the Naval Estimates and of pretending that we have control over expenditure. The real point is that we cannot touch the question of naval defence unless we can at the same time review naval policy as a whole, but what happens is this, that we get one vote one day and another vote on another day, and we find we have been building ships without sufficient men to man them. We were told that we could not possibly find all the men, the supposititious 3,000 men, whom the First Lord said he was going to join. The figure 12,900 for last year was given to me last week in reply to a question which I asked. The wastage is only 6,000. I do not see how he proposes to keep up with the shipbuilding. It is no use building ships without men. He spoke of 3,000, but I think I could give him 5,500 for the financial year, because he joins most of them at the end of the financial year. As a matter of fact, there were 7,000 this year over and above the ordinary waste. How can you re-view naval questions as a whole unless you also review naval policy as a whole. It is most absurd in my opinion to have these different questions in different Debates, and then we apparently have not got a Board at all. The First Lord has never explained his statement that any document that any Member of the Board
  998
  submits to him, if he approves of that document, is approved by the Board of Admiralty.
  The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Emmott): That does not arise on this Vote.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I will pass away from that. This is the Shipbuilding Vote, and the shipbuilding is supposed by the country to be considered by the Board of Admiralty. What is the Board of Admiralty? Is it the First Lord and the distinguished agriculturist who sits beside him? It is really a very important point. The country believes that, all these questions on the Shipbuilding Vote have been carefully considered by the Board, and yet some of the Board may have had nothing to do with it or may have dissented from it. The First Lord might wish to lay down more battleships, but that is my point, who is responsible?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Board is responsible. It is signed by the members of the Board.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD: I know all that about signing. I signed them for some years and then I refused to sign them because I did not agree with them. They may have taken a different view. I would not sign because I did not agree, but they may have done so. I would like to go on to the question with regard to what the Foreign Secretary said last night that conditions have changed and were changing. I want to point out that these conditions are changing with regard to the armament and the shipbuilding of other nations, and it is entirely our fault that that has occurred. If we had kept to our own programme with regard to the Shipbuilding Vote and merely laid down what we thought necessary for ourselves, without considering other nations, we should not be in the position we are now in of seeing the various changes that are being made with regard to the size of the ships and construction, and other dangers. After bringing forward all these remarks with regard to the "Dreadnoughts" pulverising the ships of other nations, we reduced our Shipbuilding Vote, and that is the reason why at this moment we are in a position of some danger. The First Lord last year had laid down a certain number of more battleships, and it is enough to prove my point to say that in one year we laid down two and in the next year eight. That is a process which is not businesslike, and cannot be conducive to the safety of the

  999
  country. I hope the Secretary to the Admiralty will take the opportunity to correct a mistake which he made last year with regard to my programme.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I propose to refer to that.
  Lord CHARLES BERESFORD:I think he will find I was entirely right, and that he was not correct. I should like to return to this point about the cruisers. I have raised it very often, and particularly in a little programme which I laid before the chambers of commerce. I said I wanted thirty-six cruisers. That was before the new state of affairs had been brought about by the Declaration of London. I wanted thirty-six, but the Government only provided for nine. As the hon. Gentlemen below me has pointed out, in the year 1904 we had sixty cruisers on the trade routes, and we have only twenty now. The trade routes were always a weak point, but this new Declaration makes it very much weaker than it ever was before. The hon. Member below me has referred to the Admiralty Memorandum, in which they point out that the really serious danger to this country is connected with the trade routes. Why has not something been done, if this is really a serious danger, to meet it? The number of cruisers on the trade routes has been reduced, and under this new Declaration the trade routes are more liable to attack than they were before by armoured merchantmen.
  In answer to a question the other day by the hon. Member for the Blackpool Division of Lancashire (Mr. Ashley), the right hon. Gentleman said that of cruisers twelve years old on 31st March, 1904, Great Britain had forty-eight and Germany eighteen, and on 31st March, 1911, Great Britain had only twenty-four and Germany twenty-four. These are cruisers of modern date and modern equipment and modern armament, and not more than twelve years old. But in the twenty-four the right hon. Gentleman included three of the "Boadicea" type. The question related to protected cruisers, but he included "Boadiceas" and he also included eight "Scouts." The "Scouts" are not cruisers at all. They are the mother ships for the torpedo boat destroyers, and you cannot include them among the cruisers. Their coal capacity is not large enough, and in other ways they are not suitable. They will do very well for torpedo boats. You cannot include them, and the real total number of modern
  1000
  cruisers which we have got compared with Germany under twelve years old is only thirteen. There was a great deal of discussion during the last three days on the Declaration of London and about the lack of cruisers, and what I want to point out is that if we do not have the cruisers we are handicapped with regard to the Court of Appeal.
  5.0 P.M.
  We say the danger which will occur to us will occur before you go to the Court of Appeal at all. Something must have happened, or else we have no reason to appeal, and the danger to our trade routes from lack of cruisers will be that ships will be certainly put down by armed merchant ships, which I think the right hon. Gentleman says we have not agreed to, but we have not objected to it. If we have objected there will be no result like that. If these armed ships get out on the trade routes secretly, before war, the right hon. Gentleman gays he will take steps afterwards. What steps can he take? It will be too late. He has got no ships on the trade routes to meet the armed cruisers. The Foreign Secretary yesterday spoke about the Admiralty or the Government knowing all about these ships. They do not know all about them at all. They need not be very fast; they may be six-knot ships. If they get to such places as Pernambuco or the Neck of the Bottle, they can put down these vessels, though, of course, they will be caught afterwards. But the risk of starvation has occurred to this country simply because you have not got cruisers on the trade routes, as I have often said, like policemen on the beat, to prevent these armed ships interfering with our food supply. You appeal to a court of law. What are you going to appeal about? Something which has happened, and we say that thing, having happened, might bring the country to the verge of starvation, and who would be the people affected? Without doubt the poorer classes first. I pointed out the other day that thirty-two battleships, twenty-five armed cruisers, and nine unprotected cruisers is not a fleet at all equipped or ready to fight an action. The heavy ships, armoured ships, could not carry out their duties unless you have the cruisers to render them effective, and you are dangerously short of cruisers, not only for the Fleet, but to protect the trade routes.
  The public have been misled again and again on this question of naval defence. If you look at the June Navy List, page 270, "ships arranged in various classes,"

  1001
  you will find that there are sixty-eight battleships built and building; of these the "Trafalgar" was actually sold two months ago, the "Nile" is included in the sale list, and the "Royal Sovereign," the "Empress of India," the "Hood." the "Ramillies," the "Repulse," the "Resolution," and the "Royal Oak" should not be included in the list of ships because they have been withdrawn. The "Repulse" is on the sale list, and the "Hood" has no guns as she is flagship at Queenstown. Therefore we have nine battleships which ought not to be included in the Navy List at all. I remember the same thing happening some years ago. The First Lord of the Admiralty of that day pointed out that we had more ships in commission than the rest of Europe, and he included the old "Victory," the "Asia," and other depot ships of that sort which were in commission and hoisted the pennant; and I maintain that took in the public, and that sort of argument ought not to be allowed. Then, with regard to the new problems which are coming forward very soon which will affect the Shipbuilding Vote, the First Lord has not taken into account at all what the Mediterranean Powers are doing. He said a few months ago that their programmes were nothing but paper, whereas they are now a palpable fact, and he has not, so far as I gather, taken into consideration at all the fact of the entire alteration of the strategical plans of this country when the Panama Canal is opened. That will make an entire difference to our strategic plans all over the world, and there does not appear to be any reason at present to suspect that the First, Lord of the Admiralty has taken that into his consideration.
  Then I had to find fault with him for counting in the depot ships for destroyers as cruisers. They are not equipped as cruisers, and they have to remain where they are in war. There are three ships also which come off the list, the "St. George," the "Blake," and the "Blenheim," which are all depot ships, and are counted as cruisers in his list. He told the country this year that he had 101 cruisers. He has nothing of the sort. He has really got 52 in commission, and of these 19 are T.B.D. ships or depot ships. He should not count them as cruisers, because he cannot use them as cruisers in war. He has 17 with nucleus crews that he can use, and 15 with skeleton crews. As a matter of fact, he has about 40 cruisers altogether that he can show at this moment, and it is far too little. It
  1002
  is no use saying you have 101 if you have not got them. They are not there, for the reasons I have given. To be effective a battle fleet ought to have five unprotected or small cruisers to every two battleships—that is really to carry out the duty necessary for a battle fleet, but this is not counting what is necessary for the trade routes at all. The trade routes were never properly defended, and now you have added enormously to the danger by the possibility of attack by armed merchantmen by the Declaration of London, and you are taking no steps whatever to meet it. I believe, as you are going to pass this Declaration, the very least you should lay down is sixty cruisers if you want to have your trade routes protected. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty smiles. He always smiles when I make these suggestions for increasing the Fleet. Let me show him how un necessary it is for him to smile, because he always has to do it sooner or later. I said to the London Chamber of Commerce that we wanted sixteen battleships. It was laughed at, and I think the First Lord of the Admiralty crucified it as far as he was able to in the House, but he has built fourteen of these since. This was called a most terrible scare, and I was told I was altogether incorrect and so were the fifteen admirals who supported me. I wanted thirty-six second class cruisers. He has only built nine, but he will have to build more. He may say he will not now, but he will have to, both for the Fleet and for the trade routes if this Declaration passes. I wanted fifty-two torpedo-boat destroyers. That was a gross exaggeration I was told, but he has built forty-six since. In other words he has spent, out of the £68,000,000 that I wanted, £37,000,000, and he will have to spend the rest sooner or later, and I sincerely hope he will not be too late. People who bring the facts before their country are generally called scaremongers and people who exaggerate, but I maintain now, as I have said before, that there is no single agitation for an increase of the Service which has not been justified afterwards. There is no Member in this House who can ever say that money was thrown into the sea or wasted with regard to that agitation.
  There is another case with regard to putting ships on the Navy List which really are not there. Eight second class cruisers are put in as being effective cruisers. The "Bonaventure" is a depot ship for submarines, and the other seven are mine

  1003
  layers. That is one of the most important services we have, but it is no use to say they are cruisers. They are not cruisers. They are occupied with other and more important work, and they will have to be employed in mine laying or mine sweeping when we go to war, therefore they are not cruisers, and they ought not to be put down upon the list to tell the country that they can execute certain duties when they have to execute other duties. A cruiser cannot be in two places at once. I claim that the First Lord has put fifteen ships in the Navy List which ought not to be there at all. There is another point the Foreign Secretary tried to make with regard to armed merchantmen on trade routes. He said they were all known. They are not known at all. How can they be known? A few in places are known, and the fast ones are known, but the idea that it is only fast merchant ships which can undertake the duty of armed cruisers is altogether wrong. Small ships can get there, they can be sent out without the knowledge of anybody, they can have their guns in the holds; they may be on the trade routes at such places as Pernambuco or the Neck of the Bottle as merchant ships, and not convert themselves into men-of-war until they fire their guns. Then they may put down six or eight ships, so it does not want very many of them. What does it matter what happens after the merchant ships are put down? They will have achieved their object, whether they are sunk or hanged or whatever becomes of them, and they will be in a position to bring this country to its knees through the food supply being interrupted. I was in Hull the other day on political work, and I made inquiries on a very important question. I found a great number of the poorer families were in very hard straits, and there was only about twenty-four hours' supply of flour owing to a stoppage through some strike on twenty-five steamers. That is very serious, but what would occur in time of war? If this had such an effect on the poorer classes of one town merely through a strike, imagine what would happen in time of war when the trade routes were interrupted. It is a very good object-lesson, and it will not do for the First Lord and the Government to tell us that under certain paper regulations such things are not allowed as armed merchant ships. We ought to be in a position to see that that cannot happen, and that position can only be brought about if we have a proper number of cruisers, not only
  1004
  for the battle Fleet, but for the trade routes, so that it does not matter if they put a few armed merchantmen on these trade routes with the idea of sinking our merchant ships.
  I must refer to what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) said about scrapping. I do not agree with his definition of his Government's scrapping. It is perfectly right to scrap. Always scrap anything that is obsolete but never get rid of it until you put something in its place, as is done in industrial affairs. The principle of scrapping was really brought in for no other reason but economy, and to get rid of comparisons. The other Government, when in office, and even this Government, when necessary, have scrapped these ships. While it was necessary to scrap them, they should not have been scrapped until something was put in their place, because the danger was begun. The trade routes have always been in danger. The danger was begun by taking the cruisers off the trade routes. The policy with regard to a battle fleet is absolutely different from that as to protecting trade routes as regards scrapping and tactics. You cannot mix the two together as the Admiralty Memorandum has done. You have to look at the two matters from totally different points of view. The greatest danger is in connection with the trade routes. If they are interrupted that is like cutting your arm off. Battleships do not win wars and campaigns. Supposing that the other battle fleet does not come out, is your battle fleet to cruise about the North Sea until it does come out? The armoured cruisers can have nothing to do with the protecting of your trade routes. There is only one way that can be done, and that is to have armed vessels on the trade routes—not gunned and armoured cruisers. The ordinary tramps can go out, and if the other Power arranges, as Germany would arrange, to have them at certain places at a certain moment to cut our trade routes, I maintain that is a possibility, and it is a greater possibility than ever under the Declaration of London. You have to build proper cruisers—small cruisers, protected or unprotected—to meet that difficulty with regard to the trade routes, else you are not safe.
  There is another point as to which I wish to have information. There have been complaints made very often about the ventilation of the flats, and of the compartments especially. There was a serious accident the other day on board

  1005
  one of the ships. So far as I understand the circumstances, the men should not have been in that space. I cannot help calling attention to the superb gallantry of the men who went down to rescue their comrades. I am sure the Admiralty will say that the conduct of Commander Bune was splendid, as was also that of an able seaman who went down and lost his life in trying to rescue these men. I think there should be a full inquiry into the accident. I will ask the right hon. Gentleman a question later on with reference to this matter, because these things ought never to occur. You may lose men in war, and you cannot help it, but you should lose as few in peace as possible. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I think a great deal of the confusion about the state of the Fleet and the Shipbuilding Vote is owing to the way he answers our questions, and I must ask him to be a little less evasive. We know perfectly well that there are a great many questions which it is not in the public interest to answer, and I quite agree that hon. Members should be careful not to ask such questions. But there are a great many questions which are asked, and some of us know the answers as well as possible. I believe it is within the right of one hon. Member to ask another hon. Member questions. I wish somebody would ask mo if I could answer these questions. I should never answer any question where the giving of the answer would be against the public interest. Nobody would do that who has any sense of loyalty to the Service or to the State. There are a great many answers given by the right hon. Gentleman which cause a great deal of friction and irritation on account of the way the answers are given. It is not what a man says in answering a question that causes irritation but the way he says it. If the right hon. Gentleman will take my advice, he will reform, and in answering questions which are perfectly legitimate and which are put from both sides of the House he should let us know the facts. Do not let us have inferences which are almost invariably incorrect.
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer my questions as to what he intends to do with regard to the new problems in the Mediterranean. We shall have to have a battle fleet there. We cannot afford to have our lines of communication threatened in any way by other countries who build ships superior to those we have out there. I would like to know if the Board of Admiralty are of opinion that the
  1006
  cruisers are ample, and that the Declaration of London does not add to our responsibilities in relation to the defence of our trade routes. I think that is a most important matter. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) that we are not building enough torpedo-boat destroyers, having regard to the advance made in that direction by Germany. We should never be satisfied with being simply equal. We have to get over to their coast, and we have to come back. The boats have to be relieved. Our men are at sea, while the other men are in harbour at bright fires, ready to come out when they are required. Life on a torpedo-boat destroyer at sea is a very severe life. You cannot sit down comfortably, you cannot lie down, or eat, or do anything comfortably, and no officer or man should be asked to remain for more than two nights in rough weather on board a destroyer. We ought to have as regards these boats three to one. So far as the North Sea is concerned our 27 to 29-knot boats are not suitable. We want boats of the "River" class, and more of them in proportion. Will the right hon. Gentleman let me know if the Board of Admiralty are going to build more of these destroyers? They cannot do it this year, but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration that our list of obsolete boats is far greater than that of Germany. The proportion of German boats suitable for the North Sea is greater than the number we have, taking into consideration the work our boats will have to do and the work theirs will have to do. Another question I wish to ask is whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to stay his hand in regard to docks. Is he going to build more, or are the two which are being built to be final? If they are to be final, I do not think they will be sufficient.
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): There will be four.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the questions I have asked when he is making his reply.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): Before I come to the questions that have been raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) and the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), I think it is my duty to say a few words on this Vote. It is a very important Vote. It is for this year an Estimate of the sum required to meet

  1007
  the cost of shipbuilding, repairs, and maintenance, and the cost of the establishments of the dockyards at home and abroad. The Vote is in three sections. The first section meets the cost of the personnel in the dockyards; the second meets the cost of the supply of naval stores to the yards and fuel and oils for the Fleet; and the third meets the cost of contract work, machinery for ships, contract-built hulls, armour, gun-mountings, and so on. The grand total of the Vote is £22,862,200. That is slightly over half the entire Navy Estimates for the year. It is the highest figure at which this Vote has ever stood. Of that sum, £8,496,900 goes to the yards to meet the cost of labour and material, and £14,365,300 goes for contracts. The Committee might very well note that of the grand total no less amount than £15,063,877 is for new construction, not including armaments. This, again, is the largest sum on record. Of the £15,063,877 we propose to spend £1,738,645 within the financial year. I call the attention of the hon. Member for Fareham to the fact that within the financial year we are thus spending on the new programme of the year 13.2 per cent. of the total cost of the ships in the year's programme. That is above the average of our practice, as the hon. Gentleman must know. That leaves for new construction £13,325,232 of the 1911–12 new construction Vote, which will be applied to the carrying forward and completion of previous programmes. It is due to the Committee to say how the programmes stand. Of the 1908–9 programme the only outstanding item is the torpedo-boat destroyer "Nautilus." We expected to have her during August. There have been difficulties in realising the speed and she has had two accidents. The 1909 10 programme included the famous eight "Dreadnoughts." We laid down two in July, 1909, two in November. 1909, and four in April, 1910.
  Of those one, the "Hercules" is already completed, and I think it is very creditable to the contractor that the vessel should now be completed. The "Collossus" is due this month, and probably she will be delivered in August. The "Orion" and the "Lion" are due in November, and the "Conqueror," "Monarch," "Thunderer" and "Princess Royal" are due on the 31st March next. Of the other parts of the 1909–10 programme the two unarmoured cruisers are
  1008
  already completed, and four "Bristols" are due in September and October. Of the twenty destroyers in the 1909–10 programme, there is only one outstanding: that is the "Fury." She was given to a firm which had no previous experience of this class of ship, but we expect her in September. The six submarines of the "D" class will be ready in the next few months, and one or two in the next few weeks. The floating dock for the Medway should be at its mooring before the end of the year, and the floating dock for Portsmouth will be ready early in the new year. Last year's programme includes five armoured ships, three protected cruisers, two unarmoured cruisers, and twenty destroyers, together with three more being built by the New Zealand Government; six submarines, a submarine depot ship, a floating dock for destroyers, and a floating dock for submarines, a surveying ship and a Coastguard tender. All the programme is fairly well in hand.
  The programme for 1911–12, which is now before the House, includes five large armoured ships—four battleships and an armoured cruiser, all to be completed before the end of 1913; three protected cruisers, an unarmoured cruiser, twenty destroyers, six submarines, two river gunboats, a depot ship for destroyers, and a hospital ship. When this programme is completed, which we are now asked to vote, the entire cost will be £13,205,360, and of that, as I say, we are meeting 13.2 per cent. in this financial year. That carries our provision for naval defence well to the end of 1913 or the beginning of 1914. While I am on shipbuilding, I am sure the Committee will be interested to hear, that apart from that and quite over and above that, there are under construction in this country at this moment, at the cost of the Dominion Government, the following ships:—The "New Zealand," for New Zealand, the "Dreadnought" cruiser launched last Saturday; and for Australia, the "Dreadnought" cruiser the "Australia." Both the "New Zealand" and the "Australia" are due in September, 1912. The two "Bristols" for Australia are both due in August, 1912, and there are the two submarines for Australia and the three destroyers already mentioned. That is a short statement which I thought it necessary to give of this Vote and the purposes for which it is required. I now come to the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), and I wish him to realise that our provi-

  1009
  sion is sufficient and ample to make national safety fully secure. He says that we have fallen into a very unsatisfactory position. I am bound to say as far as I am concerned that I have not a shadow of doubt that the provision we have made, which is now under discussion, is amply sufficient, not only to protect our interests but, as I shall endeavour to show in a moment, to keep open our trade routes, to which so much attention has been paid in the last two or three days. I have not a shadow of doubt of that. I am quite sure that many Members who saw the splendid flotilla at Spithead last Saturday week must agree with me in that view. Indeed, the attendance at this Committee is the very best evidence I could adduce of the fact that the public and the House of Commons feel perfectly satisfied at the character of the provision which we have made.
  Mr. LEE: It is quite up to the average of many Debates.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is not the case. It is much below the average in 1909–10. However, let me call a critic, an expert and an able and constant critic, to give evidence on this point. I call on the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne), and I want the hon. Member for Fareham particularly to note what he says, because the hon. Member for Fareham says that we have given over the two-Power standard and we are measuring ourselves against a one-Power standard. The hon. Member for North Kensington is the able editor, if I may say so, of the "Navy League Annual." In the volume for 1910–11, on page 108, this is what he says:—
  "We are pre-eminent to-day. That cannot be gainsaid."
  He goes further. Here is a comment which is rather apropos having regard to the speech to which we have just listened. In the course of an interview in the "Pall Mall Gazette," on 16th February this year, this is what my hon. Friend says:—
  "Yet the fact does remain that in all these first essentials we are not only up to the two-Power standard, but in the case of 'Dreadnoughts,' pro-'Dreadnoughts, armoured cruisers, protected cruisers, and destroyers and submarines, we have at least a 'two-keels-to-one' standard in completed vessels as against the next strongest power,"
  I think I am entitled to bring that evidence to rebut the statement of the hon. Gentleman that we have abandoned the two-Power standard. But I should like to give
  1010
  one more quotation from the hon. Gentleman. In the "Observer" of the 5th March, 1911, he says:—
  "In the first place in all general essentials we are not only up to the two-Power standard but it can safely be asserted that we possess the two keels to one."
  He goes on:—
  "Even the dock question, a great factor of dispute three years ago, is rapidly righting itself in our favour. And as we stand to-day it is only in matters of detail that it would be possible for anyone seriously to criticise our naval position."
  That is the deliberate statement of my hon. Friend and he adds in the same interview:—
  "We are secure as to our superiority in capital ships in 1913 already."
  I think after that statement that even the alarmists of the Imperial Maritime League might very well adopt a little less frenzied tone. I come now to the question of cruisers which has formed part of the speeches of the hon. Gentleman and of the Noble Lord, and which was discussed in this House earlier this year. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) and the Noble Lord (Lord Charles Beresford) both feel that we have not provided sufficiently for cruisers, and particularly the class of cruisers which would protect trade routes and maintain without interruption that supply of food stuffs which form four-fifths of the food of the people of this country. I think from a remark which fell from both the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord that I can leave out of this discussion the question of the armoured cruisers. If I leave out the "Dreadnought" cruisers we have a magnificent flotilla of thirty-four pre-"Dreadnought" armoured cruisers. They are all under twenty years of age to-day; and they will all be under twenty years of age on 31st of March, 1914. Their combined displacement is over 400,000 tons. They carry between them sixty-eight 9.2, seventy 7.5, and 318 6-inch guns. No combination of any two Powers in the world has a flotilla of that character. Therefore we are agreed that so far as the purpose of associating themselves with the main fleet in action is concerned our armoured cruisers satisfy the hon. Gentleman and the Noble Lord.
  I may leave that now and come to the question of protected cruisers and unprotected cruisers, and particularly their function of keeping open the trade routes for the food supplies of this island. The Noble Lord is a very violent opponent of what I may call the Cawdor policy, so enthusiastically endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition,

  1011
  of withdrawing and scrapping a great many small vessels at the close of 1904 and the beginning of 1905. One quotation from his views I may give from the famous London Chamber of Commerce speech of 30th June, 1909. The Noble Lord said in that speech:—
  "I think it was criminal to scrap these small ships without putting something in their place."
  As to that I am bound to say this, with the greatest respect, that although he knows a great deal more about this matter than I do, that I cannot altogether concur that his leaders—for after all it was his leaders who adopted this policy— really deserved the wrath which he poured upon them. I venture to suggest this to him. If you are going to have cruisers in distant seas, it is vital that they should be thoroughly effective, well found, and of considerable speed. If they are not what happens? My opinion is that your commerce protecting flotilla will really become death traps for gallant lives. You have only to read what happened to the "Varyak" and "Koreetz" at Chemulpo to know that.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: That is not my point at all. They can only become death traps by a superior cruiser being sent out by the enemy. That would be known at once, and these would be shadowed by two of our cruisers. They would never be death-traps against armed merchant ships in the slightest way, as long as they had guns they could put them to the bottom of the sea. That is our policy.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I think the Leader of the opposite party and Lord Cawdor Were perfectly justified in withdrawing from the charge against the Estimates that type of vessel. They locked up personnel. As the Noble Lord knows, they cost money for maintenance and repair, and expenditure upon them was not justified in my opinion, for what it is worth, by their capacity as fighting machines. Therefore, I am very much more a supporter of the policy of the late Government than their very faithful follower, the Noble Lord who represents Portsmouth. After all, that is all ancient history, although I must say I think that the hon. Member for Fareham might have remembered that it was that very policy which led to what he called the relative decline, to which he called our attention in his speech, between the proportion of our cruisers and the cruisers of other great Powers. I do not want to press that. The
  1012
  question is what have we done since and where do we stand to-day? There were no protected cruisers laid down in 1905–6, nor in 1906–7. The programme for 1907–8 initiated the "Boadicea," a vessel of 3,300 tons, 18,000 horse-power, and twenty-five knots speed, and carrying six 4-inch guns.
  In the 1908–9 programme we get an improved "Boadicea," the "Bellona," and five "Bristols," each of 4,800 tons, of 22,000 horse-power, and twenty-five-knot speed. They are armed with two six-inch guns and ten four-inch guns. In 1909–10 there were two more "Boadiceas" and four more improved "Bristols." They are each of 5,250 tons displacement, 22,000 horse-power, and twenty-four and three-quarter-knot speed, mounting each eight six-inch guns. The 1910–11 programme will give two further improved "Boadiceas," and three more improved "Bristols"—the "Dublin," the "Southampton," and the "Chatham." The present programme will give one more improved "Boadicea'' and three more "Bristols." That is a flotilla of twenty-two vessels of great speed. We have nine ships completed now, and thirteen will be completed during this year, and eighteen will be completed during next year, all of great speed. All twenty-two will be completed during 1913. But that is not all. You have also to take into consideration, apart from the monetary contributions, the cruisers proposed to be constructed by the Dominion Governments under the scheme put forward at the Imperial Conference of 1909. There are "Bristols" and "Boadicea's" in that scheme. I think it is also necessary to mention the monetary contributions. Members will see on pages eight and nine of the Estimates that the amount which is at our disposal this year is £607,400, of that £119,400 is in return for services rendered, and we allocate to Vote 8 out of this contribution £278,700 as appropriations-in-aid. Now I come to the development of the over-sea Dominion fleet resolved upon by the Imperial Conference of 1909, at which the over-sea, Dominions were represented. I include these in the tale of Imperial protection for the commerce of the Empire. When the schemes arranged are complete we shall have provision for over-sea and at home—I am not alluding now to the larger proposal of the Commonwealth of Australia but to the scheme of 1909—of twenty-two "Bristols" and eight "Boadiceas," all fast ships and effective cruisers. The Noble Lord agrees that our armoured cruisers are thirty-four.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: But you must also have small cruisers. You cannot detach the armoured cruisers for protection of trade routes.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: When the programme is completed we shall have thirty effective cruisers. Let me take the new British provision, plus the existing British provision together. I take the protected cruisers of the first, second and third classes, all under twenty years of age, and all with a speed of eighteen knots or over. On 1st April this year there were completed sixty, there were building nine, and projected three. On 1st April, 1912, there will be completed fifty-seven. One or two will have dropped out owing to the age limit, but there will be building eight, and there will be projected the 1912–13 programme, whatever that may be. It will be considered by the Admiralty with the greatest care, having regard to the interests involved, and to securing our food supplies uninterrupted.
  Mr. LEE: Will these ships include those intended for mine laying and other auxiliary services?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I should not like to answer that off-hand. At any rate, these vessels will be kept free for the purposes we are discussing. On 1st April, 1913, there will be completed fifty-eight, there will be building three, plus the 1912–13 programme, and there will be projected the 1913–14 programme. Let the hon. Gentleman look at that. You can take any combination of two Powers you like, and you do not reach that provision, the details of which I have explained. I take the unprotected cruisers, each under twenty years of age from the date of being launched, and running to a speed up to twenty-five knots. The Noble Lord pooh-poohed the idea of considering the scouts. The scouts are only six years old, some of them five years old, and of 2,600 to 2,900 tons. They carry ten 12-pounders, and two torpedo tubes. Two carry fourteen 12-pounders. The Noble Lord drew a vivid picture of a merchant ship with one 12-pounder, but we have two ships with fourteen 10-pounders and the rest with ten 12-pounders. When I called his attention to these ships he said they could not be considered for the purposes required.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: The scouts have a certain duty to perform, and they can-
  1014
  not perform two duties at once. You cannot send the scouts away from the torpedodestroyers. They could not be sent out to our trade routes, many of them three or four thousand miles distant.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I rather gather from the Noble Lord that he thinks they cannot be spared for the work. There were eight scouts and three "Boadiceas" on 1st March of this year; there will DO eight scouts and five "Boadiceas" in March, 1912, and eight scouts and six "Boadiceas" in March, 1913. That particular type is far ahead of any two-Power standard you can name; indeed, you can combine all that type of ships belonging to all the great maritime nations. I think we are all agreed in regard to armoured cruisers that we have all we need. I recognise, and must recognise, that the question of the food supply of this country is vital, but I declare that the protection afforded under this programme is quite ample. If the hon. Member will turn to the Estimates he will find that we pay a subvention of £150,000 a year for the right of pre-emption, as armed cruisers or transports, of the two great Cunarders, the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania." If they look at page 101 of the Estimates hon. Members will see a note to the effect that the Cunard Company hold all their vessels at the disposal of the Government—apari from the "Mauretania" and the "Lusitania" subvention, and each vessel has 68,000 horse-power—and all are to be at the disposal of His Majesty's Government for hire or purchase. With regard to workmen in the dockyard, I desire to make a short, comment. The replies to last year's petition will I hope be immediately promulgated, although we have not quite completed the necessary selections to enable me to make a statement about it to-day. I may say I do not think the matter will be found very exciting. It must be remembered that since 1906 we have made some considerable concessions to the workmen in the yards. As a matter of fact, on the numbers which are now engaged in the Royal Dockyards the concessions we have made amount in wages to an annual value of over £67,000. We have made a concession on the working hours, making them uniformly forty-eight hours a week throughout the year, and we have done a very considerable amount to encourage yard boys to go to the evening schools.
  Mr. HODGE: Does the statement as to wages apply to individual men?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: It has given individual advances certainly. If we take the existing number of workmen engaged the increase which we have given since 1906 comes to over £67,000 a year. We shall this year make a concession which I know will be appreciated. In May, 1907, the establishment was closed, and it was reopened again in June, 1910. The maximum age for establishment was then forty-five years, and a number of men in the interval between 1907 and June, 1910, reached the forty-five years' maximum, and therefore lost their chance for establishment. We recognised at once that that was a great hardship. We went to the Treasury and called attention to the fact, recommending that the age for establishment should be raised from forty-five to fifty years. We thought it expedient that fifty and not forty-five should be the maximum in future for establishment. Sanction has now been obtained from the Treasury, and men are enabled to become eligible for establishment up to fifty years. I am quite sure the extension will be appreciated.
  Mr. HODGE: Do I understand that you increase the age from forty-five to fifty?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The maximum age was forty-five, and now the Treasury have sanctioned that up to fifty years they will be eligible for establishment.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: But they would have to meet competition?
  6.0 P.M.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I assume they will, but at any rate, they will have the chance of establishment up to the age of fifty. I desire to refer to another matter which has reference to the conflict which arose between the Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth and myself in the early Debates on the Navy Estimates this year. I feel that I must make some short reference to it. In a speech in the Chamber of Commerce the Noble Lord asked for ten battleships up to 31st March, 1914—six if we laid down a contingent four. We did lay down the contingent four, and we laid down five in 1910–11, so that if in 1911–12 we laid down one battleship he ought to be satisfied. That is what I took from his statement. The Noble Lord stoutly denied it, and insisted that the ten up to 31st March, 1914, was conditional, and that under certain circumstances you would want not ten, but sixteen, and that would give you thirty-two by 31st March, 1914, instead of thirty. What I insisted
  1016
  upon was that he had not asked for sixteen; the Noble Lord will remember that that was my point. He did not ask for sixteen so far as "The Times" report was concerned. That was the best report open to me, and there is no reference to sixteen in it. What does occur in it is this, that the Noble Lord speaking said:—
  "I must tell you that the proposal I am making does not allow for German acceleration—"
  although we had learned by that date that there was no German acceleration—
  "because again I do not want my countrymen to pay for something which is not visible, and it does not allow in any way for the Austrian announcement of the commencement of four battleships."
  The Noble Lord is entitled to claim that I did not give sufficient attention to that proviso, but my contention that he did not ask for sixteen in the speech as reported in "The Times" is a perfectly correct one. The reference to the sixteen is in the appendix which the Noble Lord afterwards was so good as to show to me and give to me. I have it here, and the Noble Lord will easily see that that could not be printed in a newspaper. It states:—
  "This is the detailed account of my proposals as indicated by me in my speech of 30th June, 1969."
  At the top is shows ten ships, including the contingent four, and later on
  "Increase of above programme if Austria lays down four battleships…"
  by six ships, and that makes up his sixteen. I ought to have given greater attention to the proviso, but the sixteen was not in the report. Nevertheless, the Noble Lord knows I would not intentionally misrepresent him; I only refer to the controversy to give, as I now do, a more complete and more accurate statement of what the Noble Lord's intentions were than I did on 16th March.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting speech, but it would have been more interesting to me, and, indeed, in some respects more worthy of the occasion if he had occupied more of it in dealing with the arguments which had been advanced by previous speakers upon certain very grave questions of naval policy. I do not think that he dealt with those, at any rate at any great length. He gave us his interpretation of a speech delivered many months ago, and gave us a long extract from a newspaper report of a speech which was delivered by an hon. and gallant Friend of mine, all matters of great interest, but none of them, if he will permit me to say so, touch-

  1017
  ing the issues raised either by the hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House with regard to the arming of "Dreadnoughts," or with regard to the even more vital question raised in the speech of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee), and in the speech of my Noble Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford). I hope those questions will be dealt with by the First Lord of the Admiralty. The hon. Member for Kincardineshire (Captain Murray) has dealt with a point which, I am sure, has caused great anxiety both in the Admiralty and out of it for many years past. When the "Dreadnought" policy was started it was at that time a subject of great anxiety as to whether the secondary armament of those ships was really adequate and was really the best that could be introduced in view of the work they would have to do in the North Sea and other theatres of operation, where the range of vision on many days of the year is necessarily limited. At that time all the experts of the Admiralty were quite clear that our system was the best. I do not think any Government can take a view other than that which is pressed on them by those who are really responsible in a matter which is clearly highly technical matter.
  Nevertheless, I think that the anxiety which on this point has existed from the beginning must have been augmented by the fact that while every naval nation of the world has imitated us in policy with regard to ships of the "Dreadnought" type, no nation in the world has accepted our policy with regard to the secondary armaments of those ships. I admit that the arguments in favour of practically concentrating all your force in your biggest type of gun, with the exception of the relatively small guns which only are to be used in case of torpedo attack, I admit there was, and is, much to be said for it. I remember when I used to inquire into the question, the argument which I think most weighed with the technical advisers of the Government was that is was far easier to get a range if you had only one type of great gun, than if you had mixed types and had more than one kind of gun. I have no doubt that that argument is of great weight. On the other hand, it is impossible to shut our eyes to the fact that many men of perfectly sound and unbiassed judgment in this country are in doubt as to whether we are adopting the right policy. If you ask the naval constructors of our great yards under private Control, I believe you will find that they
  1018
  think our policy is open to question. What moves me more than anything else is that the Germans, the Americans, and the Japanese, to mention only those three great naval Powers, apparently have taken a different view from that which is adopted by the Admiralty.
  Mr. McKENNA Mr. McKENNA made an observation which was inaudible.
  Mr. BALFOUR: They may differ among themselves, but none of them agree with us. I think every one of those nations, who have devoted an immense amount of care, thought, and expense to determining the exact methods in which they would adopt our "Dreadnought" policy, have come to the conclusion that, rightly or wrongly, we are not armed in the second batteries of those great ships. I do not ask the Government naturally, or the First Lord to go against the advice of his experts; it would be folly to do so, he must be guided by those who are most eminently distinguished men; but I do ask him and them to consider with most anxious care the opposite conclusion, or the different conclusion, which has been arrived at by nations so diverse in training and so ready to follow us where they can, and who have all agreed at any rate to vary the practice that we have established, and to vary it in a manner which may make a very vital difference if the ships are ever tested by the supreme arbitrament of a naval engagement. That was the first point, or one of the first points, raised in this Debate, and it was not followed in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Then I come to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham. My hon. Friend did not dwell at length upon the questions so often debated in this House whether our programme of battleships, meaning by battleships "Dreadnoughts" in the strictest sense of the word, and "Invincibles," whether that was or was not adequate to the necessities of this country. He did not go over in details the disputes which we have had on previous occasions, but he did mention one specific point which does deserve the attention of the Government and the House. He pointed out that if you take the accepted programme of the central Continental States which are in alliance, and compare that programme in the matter of battleships with our programme you will find that in the year 1914 there is no substantial superiority on the part of this country. Heaven forbid we should be

  1019
  engaged with the central Powers of Europe. It is, I hope, a contingency so remote as to be one which, except when we are dealing with the real necessities of self-preservation, we may put on one side. But they are great States, and in alliance, and if we should be in the unhappy contingency suggested by my hon. Friend we should have to divide our forces so as to protect our interests in the Mediterranean in such a way as would leave us in the North Sea in a very much weaker position than this country is in the habit of supposing, in face of any real and serious dispute with the next greatest naval Power to ours in the world.
  Mr. LOUGH: How can you tell the state of affairs in 1914?
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is because I cannot tell what the slate of affairs may be in 1914 I ask the Government to be prepared for any contingency. I pass from that point, which I ventured again to emphasise, to what was the main substance of my hon. Friend's contention, and which I admit was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman, though not, I think, in a satisfactory fashion, if he will forgive me for saying so. My criticism of his mode of dealing with it is this. He read us a long list of statistics, and if he will allow me to say so, too long a list, because it included a great many ships quite incapable of protecting our commerce, and not intended to protect our commerce. [An HON. MEMBER: "Scouts."] I think he included scouts, and I thought he included some for laying mines.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not sure. I do not think so.
  Mr. BALFOUR: My criticism is just, but it is not as just as I thought. He did include scouts but he did not include some other ships which, if he had included, he would be prepared to admit ought to form any part of any such detailed list. Having gone through this list, he says: "Can any other nation in the world, or any other two nations, show us a list of cruisers comparable to the one which will be possessed by this country and the Dominions of this country in a very short time?" I do not think that that is the proper way to deal with this particular strategic problem. It is the proper way to deal with the comparative strength of fighting fleets. Then you may set them side by side, ship by ship, and say that one fleet is stronger
  1020
  or not stronger than, equal or unequal to, some other, and that if it is equal so far as that other fleet is concerned you are safe. But that is not the way to treat the great lines of communication. It is not even a mere question of which nation has the largest fleet of modern or relatively modern cruisers. The question is whether such a Fleet as we have got is adequate to protect our great lines of commerce in the critical weeks which would exist at the opening of a war. That is not a question which can be settled merely by reading out a list, however formidable, of cruisers and saying that no other country can show anything to compare with it.
  Our anxiety has been, and is, with regard to the safety of our trade routes, especially in the earlier stages of a war. We know from an Admiralty document published on the authority of the Secretary of State for War, that the method by which the Government expect to be able to deal with cruisers attacking our commerce is that of more or less effectively scaling up the ports from which, as their base, those cruisers could prey on our commerce. Apparently some northern Continental Powers were in question. The view of the Admiralty seems to be that if you have a superior Fleet in the North Sea you can protect all those converging lines of commerce which come across the Atlantic from west to east, or from south to north from the Mediterranean and elsewhere. I suppose that that is and does remain a fundamental and important part of the strategy of this country for dealing not only with the enemy's fleets, but with the enemy's cruisers. But one cannot help feeling after what has occurred, not merely in the Debate of last night, but also in regard to the apparently steady movement that Continental opinion has shown in all the Debates on the Declaration of London, and taking into account the views that Continental Governments have expressed in those Debates that there will or may be a very considerable creation of, as we think, illegitimate cruisers on the high seas out of merchantmen. Hence it seems to me that the importance of policing the trade routes is and must be immensely increased. It is really no use saying that these ships will be very imperfectly adapted to the work. They will be most imperfectly adapted to the permanent work, but will they from their situation at the moment of the declaration of war be imperfectly adapted to carry out that function, which is the one we most

  1021
  fear, namely, the destruction of ships belonging to neutrals or ships belonging to ourselves carrying the foodstuffs which in the early stages of a war will bo so absolutely necessary to us?
  It is no use comparing the actual numerical strength of our cruisers with the numerical strength of the cruisers possessed by this or that other country. These cruisers do not meet in battle; they do not meet as organised forces. If the whole question was to be settled by a fight between our cruisers and the organised cruisers of another nation, the numerical estimate would be amply sufficient. But that is not what is going to happen. We must provide policemen for all these routes, and the policemen have to deal with a new kind of criminal since the Declaration of London, or, more strictly, since the Continental Powers, by their resistance to our views on this subject in the debates on the Declaration of London, have so freely shown that they regard it as one of their really important weapons of offence against this country that they should be able to commission merchantmen on the high seas—merchantmen which, however ineffective for permanent work during a war, may deal us a blow at the very moment when that blow is most serious. I hope that when the First Lord comes to reply he will give us as much satisfaction on this point as the public interest will permit. I say as much as the public interest will permit because it would not be proper to insist that this Government, or any Government, should describe to the House of Commons, and through the House of Commons to the world at large, precisely what their strategical plans were, and how they proposed in every case to deal with this or that difficulty which might confront the country. Nevertheless, though I quite admit that, if the First Lord thinks it his duty to say that it is inexpedient in the public interest to make a full explanation on the point, I for one shall deem it my duty to accept that statement, and I hope he will realise that nothing has yet been said from that Bench, either in the Debate to-day or in previous Debates, of a kind which will really satisfy us.
  I do not wish to take part in the discussion in any controversial spirit. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to say, as he is justified in saying for what it is worth, that this policy of diminishing the number of cruisers of no great fighting capacity is a policy which we began—we did begin it,
  1022
  and I think we were right. But I would point out that certain circumstances must have been pressed on the attention of the Government during the last two years which were not, and could not, have been present to our minds. I certainly never realised or thought it possible that it would be the declared policy of great nations—a policy which they would refuse to deprive themselves of the power of pursuing—to turn their ships on a great scale into commerce destroyers on the high seas. It is true, of course, that the beginnings of the policy could even then have been discerned. In my view—I do not know whether the Government would agree— the spirit of the Treaty of Paris was broken as soon as merchant vessels were turned into war vessels without having crews, organised, drilled, and trained in the method which we recognise as characteristic of a man of war. What was intended by the Treaty of Paris when we abolished privateering was not so much to prevent the destruction of commerce as to prevent the destruction of our commerce by ships that were not warships. I believe it is only correct to say that these converted merchantmen would be warships. I imagine that they would be. We should not use the old crews and merely turn the merchant ships into commerce destroyers. We should make them really Government ships, with the same drill and discipline, and in every respect indistinguishable from cruisers. But I do not believe that that is what is intended by the Continental nations which claim this power. They do not mean to have these ships really warships; they want to have them technically warships, colourably warships; but they mean deliberately and in a most dangerous fashion to get round the original Treaty of Paris of 1856, and to cover the high seas as far as they can with what are in effect substantially privateers, with the additional danger that they only become privateers in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
  That danger may have begun to show itself three or four years ago, but I do not believe that anybody could then have foreseen the magnitude which it has now reached under the stress of the discussions on the Declaration of London. That danger is now facing us, and even if the Government do not think it proper to declare all the plans which they have for dealing with this new menace to our food supplies and our trade routes, I earnestly hope that in their building programme they will make special provision for this

  1023
  fresh, and as I think very grave danger to which our food supplies and the raw materials of this country are now subject, and from which certainly we all believe they were in practice safe when the "scrapping" policy was introduced. I do not wish to raise the issue of the Declaration of London again. I deeply regret the decision to which the House of Commons came, but they did come to it, and that matter may be said for the moment to be settled. The appeal I make to the Government is that they should face the situation which they, as I think, are in part responsible, and which, whether they are responsible for it or not, is now upon us, and adapt their building programme to the new dangers and the new circumstances which have arisen.
  Mr. WILKIE: I make no apology for intervening in this discussion. I think that when a Member who is specially interested in the subject rises to address the Committee he should have an opportunity to put forward his views. I hope, therefore, the Committee will bear with me if in my rough and rugged way I attempt to place my views before them. In listening to these Debates I have all along felt that they were largely hypothetical. Even to-day, the Leader of the Opposition was challenged as to whether he knew what will be the situation in 1914, and he admitted he did not. How is it possible for the human intellect to provide for what you do not know? That, I think, proves my statement that many of these discussions have been purely hypothetical. I understood that the Vote under discussion was Vote 8 (Construction), but the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Arthur Lee) at the very beginning of the Debate boxed the compass. I do not intend to deal with general policy except that I would remind the Committee that the "Dreadnoughts" have never been tested in actual war, whilst the pre-"Dreadnoughts' have been. It is possible that the "Dreadnoughts" may turn out to be not as effective as their designers anticipated. As more or less of a layman, my opinion would be, for, at least, a great portion of our home waters, to provide smaller ships and with greater speed, with equal armament to anything afloat. I listened very carefully to the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth (Lord C. Beresford), with his experience of the salt sea he always brings a breeze into the House when he refers to these questions.
  1024
  I hope he will excuse me if I remind him— as I have been reminded since last election—that he was elected, not merely to look after the policy of the Admiralty, but likewise to say one little word—I have not heard one to-day—on behalf of the men who construct the vessels of the Navy, which he knows the work of so well. I think at the last election the dockyards town was swept by his side on their promises of what was to be done for the workers. So far not much has been done.
  I desire to enter into the question from an industrial point of view. I fully expected the Secretary to the Admiralty, when he was up, to say something on the point. I hope the First Lord, when he rises, will tell us he has done something for the workers. Is it not possible that we can have our policy in this matter thought out instead of for one or two years, for five, six, or ten years? I believe other countries are doing it, and have done it; and why cannot we? I know perfectly well that there are very great difficulties in the way; but it is to get over difficulties that politicians are for, especially Ministers! They should be sagacious in contriving and dexterous in using means to get over their difficulties. The Members of the Government might show some of that skill and dexterity that some, at least, of the Opposition credit them with. I desire, therefore, that they should use it in the direction I have indicated, which would help to steady the trade of the country. One of the reports of the Poor Law Commission—I think it was the Minority Report—dealing with the industry of the country suggested that when the trade of the country was slack there should be some increase of the national work; and that when the trade of the country was busy the national work should slacken down. I certainly strongly contend that the national resources and the national services, wherever possible, should be used to regulate the general ebb and flow of labour and of trade.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his speeches on the National Insurance Bill, admitted that the workers are the greatest sufferers by these great fluctuations of trade; likewise that they are the least responsible. A real effort should, therefore, be made to mitigate this. We should by this means give more stability to the trade of the country and greater continuity of employment to a larger number of workers. Surely it would be better to employ men on national work than what we have been doing, that is giving grants

  1025
  in relief to unemployed workmen—sometimes not to the most deserving. During the last few years in the depression of the shipbuilding trade we have had as many as 30 per cent. unemployed. With the present flow of improved trade and the extra work required to be done by our own and other Governments, in some cases the supply for certain classes of workers is not equal to the demand, the workers asserting that they are either starved to death or, as at present, worked to death. We contend that a real effort ought to be made to change that state of affairs, because if it goes on what will be the result? A large number of extra men will be introduced into the industry, and then when the recurrent depression comes, unless some bettor method has been introduced in the meantime, we will not only have 30 per cent. of our men idle, but 50 or 60 per cent, "making bad worse and confusion worse confounded." Therefore, with all humility, I respectfully suggest that until the temporary rush is over the contract work of the Government should be slowed down. We have the complaint of a great many Government contractors who find it difficult to meet their date of delivery: to meet their obligations they have to work a large amount of overtime. That overtime is bad; it has to be paid for at time and a half; it is virtually more or less loss: whereas if the contractors could slow clown there would be a better return to the country in extending the period of the employment of the workers.
  The First Lord admitted, I think, in his opening speech this Session, that there was some delay Last year from the industrial trouble. Notwithstanding—I suppose it was an Election catching cry from the opposite side, who "wanted eight and wouldn't wait"—the delay has done no harm to anyone. The hypothetical position of 1914 is no longer taken as an actual fact, or in proof of the assertion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If that delay had been caused by the workers we would likely have heard of great indignation raised against the workers, who would have been accused of lack of patriotism in dealing with the work. But as it was not their action hardly a word was said in reference to the delay, proving after all that all the cries raised were not real, but only made for party purposes, which, however, failed at the last election. I do not want to enter into the question of the burden of armaments. I have always been one who favoured an efficient navy. But the cost of our national defences must be con-
  1026
  sidered with our national income. What we contend is that it apparently is easier to get money from this House to destroy life than to preserve and to develop it. We contend that the assertion that we cannot provide adequate defensive forces for our country and at the same time provide for social reform is shown not to be the case by the fact that our greatest naval competitor at present is beating us in social reform, is spending more upon social reform. If that country can do it, so can we. We can, therefore, obtain better conditions than we have.
  To come from the mere question of the dead material to the living labour, I want to bring the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the inequality of treatment that is meted out to the different class of workers in His Majesty's dockyards. In doing so I do not desire to appear to be invidious in comparing one class of workman with another. I desire simply to state facts as they are, not that the one class who may be at the top is receiving more than its share. Far from it. But I do say that the others are receiving less than they ought to receive. An example the First Lord has had, I think, put to him before, and he has not made the response which we think he should have made. Take the case of boys sitting for examination with a view to starting dockyard employment. Those who obtain the highest number of marks get the choice of trade. The two principal trades are engineering and ship construction. The two boys who pass at the top of the list take these trades. They enter the yard equal. They both attend the dockyard school for four years and are trained in the same subjects. At the end of four years they are both equal in scholastic and mechanical training. At the end of six years their apprenticeship period comes to an end. Both are still equally good. Now comes the difference. The maximum pay of the shipwright is £l 15s. 6d. The minimum pay of the engineer is £l 16s. How there is that difference in the two departments we cannot understand. Both work the same hours and under similar conditions. We certainly contend that these inequalities even amongst the Government's own employés ought to be redressed.
  In view of the advance of wages given by the shipbuilders of this country we expected the Admiralty would have given a more generous response to the petition of the workmen, and if they had not given an advance, at least would have brought up

  1027
  their men to an equivalent rate. How this should be denied the workmen we cannot understand. It is not in the interests of the public that it should be denied. When we go further and compare the rates of pay of the Admiralty in a considerable number of their principal trades, we have complaints made by the contractors who build vessels outside that the difference is much greater. The Government recently brought in an amended Fair-Wages Clause, and the present President of the Board of Trade told us that it was "not only watertight but seaworthy." If so, I contend the Admiralty are not carrying out their own ideal. The Admiralty compel their contractors to observe this Fair-Wages Clause, yet they are not observing it themselves. Take the trade in which I am most conversant. The rates of pay of the shipwrights in the Dockyard is 35s. 6d. per week for the hired men, and 34s. for the established men. The rate paid in the other shipbuilding yards for doing precisely the same class of work is from 3s. 6d. to 10s. per week higher. And if you take the joiners' and other trades that figure is even greater. Will the Government give us a committee of inquiry, where we can go into the matter and have the whole thing investigated and dealt with once and for all, so as to prevent this squabbling and continued complaints that come to some of us and involve us in a great amount of correspondence?
  I now come to the next question of what is called skilled labour; that is merely a name for a. class to which boys work up to. The First Lord of the Admiralty is thoroughly conversant with this matter, but the real point at issue has been missed. This class of workers are employed upon drilling, riveting and caulking, and we are told that, if they were classed as mechanics they would have to be discharged. As a rule you do not discharge many of your skilled artisans. It is not denied—indeed, it is admitted—that the skilled labourers doing this class of work are only a little less skilled than artisans, and that they are doing good work. Therefore, if they are doing good work equal to contract work in regard to which the Admiralty compel contractors to pay the standard rate, then I say that the Admiralty ought to pay these men a proper scale of wages. If they put them on less skilled work, let them pay a less skilled rate. We have had classification but classification does not meet the difficulty, because under classification you may have four men
  1028
  equally skilled upon one job, doing the same amount of work, but each of the four getting a different rate of pay. What I contend is that the Admiralty should classify the work and pay the men the rate they are entitled to. If they did that they would get rid of the whole difficulty. There is no reason why these men doing this work with recognised skill should not receive the same rate as similar men received from the contractors. I urge upon the Admiralty their favourable consideration for this matter, and I have to publicly thank the First Lord of the Admiralty for giving me an opportunity of pulling the case before him. I referred the other day to the respectful request for improved conditions for carpenter warrant officers, shipwrights, and carpenters crew, who have not received any improvement for the last thirty years. They are now becoming disappointed and disheartened, which as everybody knows takes the energy and life out of men. If we are to maintain an efficient navy and efficient ships we must have efficient warrant officers, shipwrights, carpenters and crew afloat.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: On a point of Order, Mr. Whitley, does this Vote include carpenters and crews?
  Mr. WILKIE: I am only following the example of the hon. Member for Fareham, who boxed the compass, and I hope the hon. Member will excuse me for I have on two or three occasions tried to get in with this discussion when it would have been strictly in order, and I can now only ask the indulgence of the Committee to enable me to put my point. You may have the best commanders and engineers and everything else in your ship, but these men who know the ship from stem to stern are the men you must depend upon in times of emergency. Let us have an inquiry right down into all these things and let us go into the question of the complaints of the workmen and the complaints from the engine room and from the dockyards. I say it will be far better to the interests of the Navy that you should have these matters inquired into and investigated. I ask the Admiralty, will it not be possible to expedite the method of dealing with these questions. There is considerable friction over the long delay that take place and owing to the length of time before answers are given. I hope the Committee will agree to accept an inquiry into these matters, and if they do, they will be acting in the best interest, not only of the Navy, but of the Nation as a whole.
  Mr. ALAN BURGOYNE: I am sure the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument, but if I rather return to the subject which I think is entirely in order, and which has been dealt with by some Members upon this side of the House; that is the question of secondary armament. Before I come to that I should like to make some reference to the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty. I am not ashamed of anything I have written, nor am I frightened by criticism upon it, but I repudiate the suggestion, which I dislike intensely, that I am to be considered as an expert. I never claim to be such. In the course of the Debate upon the Naval Estimates of the year, earlier in the Session, references were made by a number of hon. Members on this side of the House, and also by some Members on the other side, to the fact that in armament of the latest type of ships of the line now under construction both at home and abroad we of all the naval Powers had abandoned secondary armaments, as hitherto understood. I do not think it can be contended by the Admiralty that the answers that came from the Treasury Bench were, at all convincing or satisfactory, and it is for that reason I wish to deal with this important matter at some length. During the course of the same Debate an hon. Member below the Gangway complained that in naval and military matters we were entirely in the hands and under the control of (he experts, and, if I remember rightly, he suggested that we should have a little more to say as to the design, displacement and cost of ships. He instanced the United States, where the very design of ships is largely settled by the decision of the Senate. I think a large majority of the Members of this House would agree that it would be folly for us to adjudicate upon the technicalities of ship construction. But, nevertheless, I submit that the question I have to put is one that should receive the earnest attention of those interested in our naval defences. It is not my wish to weary the Committee with the dull minutiæ of naval development, but I may remind the Committee in support of my case that until the advent of "Dreadnoughts" all capital ships, whatever might be their difference in detail—in displacement, in the thickness of armour or in outward appearance—possessed this in common in all countries in the world, that their armaments were divided into three distinct sections, each destined for an equally distinct
  1030
  theoretical function. First came the primary armament, representing the smashing power of the ship, and being in effect the great factor which distinguishes the capital ships from the smaller and lesser craft. Next came the secondary armament of medium guns, which was there for several purposes. In the first place it was there as a supplement to the main armament for the effective attack upon the lighter structures. They were intended further for the rapid discharge of morale shaking explosives, with the view to upsetting the equilibrium of the crews of rival ships, and finally for defence or offence against such protected craft as might come within range and not be of that importance to warrant the use of the larger weapons. Lastly there was the anti-torpedo craft or tertiary armament destined for the rapid discharge of projectiles against swift vessels attacking with the torpedo as their arm.
  During the last ten years there has been a conviction growing in the minds of those interested in naval matters that the multiplication of war functions in a single hull is a mistake. In the old days a battleship, by reason of the fact that she carried a secondary armament could undertake the functions of cruiser as well as battleships. She carried mines—she was therefore also a minelayer. Now there are mine-layers fitted solely for the laying of these explosives; to-day certain types of ships perform certain types of functions. Indeed, simplicity is the basis of naval development. I mention this point merely because it has an important bearing on what I desire to prove. The essence of successful gunnery, once precision has been attained, is "fire control, and it is impossible adequately to perform this all-important function without careful "spotting," that is to say the instantaneous yet precise observation of the effect of the projectile discharged upon the mark aimed at. Obviously if a broadside fired into an enemy is composed of shot and shell of many and varying sizes the effect of the discharge cannot properly be gauged. The result of this gunnery axiom is to be found in the "Dreadnought" where the primary and secondary armaments were merged into one. The acceptance of this axiom too dispels for all time from the minds of the vast majority of naval officers and others interesting themselves in the question any regard for a secondary battery as a supporting factor to the primary weapon. We are thus left with the big guns and the

  1031
  little guns with no medium weapons, intended either to aid the former or supplement the number of the latter. The Noble Lord the Member for Portsmouth said he believed that the best mixture of armaments in battleships was a combination of the smallest effective big gun with the largest effective small gun. In that he was but following the axiom laid down by Lord Fisher, than whom no greater authority could be mentioned. With the big guns now being mounted I have nothing to do. It may be stated, however, that they are probably the finest in the world. I would direct the attention of the Committee, therefore, to the small guns, the tertiary or anti-torpedo armament. These weapons are mounted on modern ships for but a single purpose—to protect the vast structures from destroyer, torpedo boat or submarine attack. The value of a gun, I take it, may be judged by its suitability for the work it will be called upon to perform.
  In 1877 the first serviceable torpedo boat, the "Lightning," displaced seventeen tons and steamed eighteen knots, and even by 1890 we had not generally reached one hundred tons displacement, whilst the speed was no more than twenty-two knots. To meet these torpedo carrying crafts, battleships of that period carried a number of guns firing shells weighing one, three, or six pounds. But in those days certain facts entered into consideration. The speed of the attacking craft was comparatively small, thus providing a large period during which they would be under fire. Their torpedoes were erratic and of short range, so that an attack, to be successful, had to be pushed right home, and the size of the boat was such that a few six-pound projectiles bursting inside them would disable and stop them.
  7.0 P.M.
  By 1892 the menace of the torpedo-boat had become so great that the Admiralty introduced an antidote—they had already tried one, the torpedo-catcher or torpedo gunboat, but it failed miserably on the score of speed. In 1893 we came first to the torpedo-boat destroyer of the Havock type, of 210 tons. Having introduced this destroyer, it was promptly taken up by every other Power, with the result that it slowly displaced the small craft it had been introduced to destroy and became, in its turn, the bane of the battleship. To meet the bigger craft it was necessary to introduce a new anti-torpedo weapon, and the battleships were promptly fitted with a
  1032
  twelve or fifteen-pounder gun, and we did not change this up to the days of the "Dreadnought," when we went as far as the 4-inch gun, firing, according to its type, a shell weighing twenty-five or thirty-one pounds. The point I wish to make is that whilst destroyers have gone up to 1,000 tons displacement or more, we have not increased the calibre of the anti-torpedo guns. This was not a very important matter at the time since, in addition to these twelve-pounder guns, we had the secondary battery of 6-inch guns.
  But what is the ease when these 6-inch guns have been removed? How are our ships placed? History teaches us that victory can only be gained by a preponderance in battleships fitted to lie in the line. This has always been so in the past, and it will be so in the future. I wish to emphasise what the Secretary to the Admiralty has already said, namely, that in regard to battleships we have probably reached the zenith of our naval preponderance. I think I am right in saying that we shall, after the commissioning of the "Colossus" and "Hercules," have fourteen "Dreadnoughts." as against fourteen "Dreadnoughts" possessed by the rest of the world combined. Whilst that is true, it is equally true that from this day onward we shall descend in our ratio of naval strength as compared with other Powers, and the time will come when we shall find ourselves with a superiority of not more than nine ships. Now I ask the Committee to consider when we have a superiority of no more than nine ships, what will the feelings of the country be—
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Member means nine ships of the "Dreadnought" type.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: Yes. I want to recall to the right hon. Gentleman's mind that he once made the statement that the time will come when "Dreadnoughts" alone will count.
  Mr. McKENNA: Not yet.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: I am coming to that particular time.
  Mr. McKENNA: But then we shall have more than a margin of nine ships.
  Mr. BURGOYNE: I am speaking up to the year 1914, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can look further. I ask what will be the feelings of the country if, as the result of a destroyer attack, which they are unfitted to meet, we learned that six or eight of our super-"Dreadnoughts "

  1033
  had been torpedoed and sunk, leaving us with a battle fleet inferior to that of the enemy? It may be contended that this is a fancy picture, but what are the facts? What happened in the last naval battle in the Far East? Japan lost one-third of her fighting line, two out of six battleships in a very short time. The "Dreadnought" carries only twenty-four 12-pounder guns. Is the First Lord going to tell me that she could beat off an attack by, say, four destroyers of 800 tons, steaming at thirty knots, and using torpedoes with 7,000 yards range and 45 knots speed? Obviously he is not going to say anything of the sort. You could not keep them off, and the "Dreadnought" would have to go down. The, weakness of the case is recognised by the introduction of the 4-inch guns firing a 25-lb. to 31-lb. shell. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will suggest that even a 4-inch gun firing those shells will keep off destroyers. Does he imagine that even a dozen of these in each of the attacking craft will prevent at least one of them getting home with a torpedo? I have only to refer to the entire Navy for an answer, and almost with a united voice they will tell him these weapons are far too small and quite inadequate. A man might as well try to shoot leopards with a rook-rifle.
  We have to take all these things into consideration. Admiral Paris once said that the farther we go in naval warfare, the more wars will be fought with money. If a "Dreadnought" sinks we lose a matter of £2,000,000, but if four 800-tons destroyers sink the loss is barely £600,000. Surely that would be a profitable transaction to a hostile Navy. I am not contending that you ought to have nothing but torpedo craft. Perhaps the First Lord will tell us that in the case of the large modern destroyer the guns of the main armaments will be used. Would this not savour of shooting rabbits with an elephant rifle? Also, if you are going to use your big guns for repelling torpedo craft, what become of their inner linings should a fleet action take place on the day following an attack by night? Another idea which has been put forward is that possibly a screen of our own destroyers will be maintained around our battle Fleet. That is a type of dependence which is quite new to naval tactics. If other nations were following our lead I would not have pressed this matter to such inordinate length, but what do we find abroad? Whilst in general principle they follow the "Dreadnought," they mount, in
  1034
  addition to a heavy battery of ten or a dozen large guns, a number of weapons firing projectiles infinitely heavier than that discharged by our 4-inch guns.
  I only need to mention the recent naval review. I will take the great American and German vessels at that review. The "Delaware" mounts fourteen 5-inch guns firing a 60-lb. shell; the "Von de Tam" has a number of weapons firing an 88-lb. shell in addition to sixteen 20-pounders. The same applies to the ships now building for Japan, France, Russia, Austria, Italy, Brazil, Argentine, Chili, and Turkey. Spain alone follows our example, and has nothing larger than the 4-inch gun in her ships now building. I do not intend to detain the Committee any further. I have stated my case at great length because I wish to make it clear that I have not raised this question for purely party or obstructive purposes, but because it is one not only of urgency but of gravity. Although there may be and are points of criticism in other directions, I venture to state that to send our huge expensive capital ships to sea inadequately provided against attack with the most potent of modern naval weapons, the torpedo, is a folly almost amounting to a crime. I hope I may appeal to the First Lord not to pass this subject off with a mere reference, because he knows that I voice a large section of the naval service. I ask him to give to the Committee and the country a comprehensive explanation of the policy he and his Hoard have adopted in the past and some definite expressions of opinion as to the lines they propose to pursue in the future.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: I desire to draw attention to an important matter affecting a class of men employed by the Admiralty—I refer to the Admiralty writers. There has been an inquiry into the case of these men. I may say that their wages have remained unaltered since the year 1879. They have petitioned the Admiralty since 1904. but they have never yet received any answer to any of the petitions they have sent in. They petitioned the Admiralty in 1908, and a Staffing Committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), and that Committee reported on 3rd September, 1909. Since then these men have been patiently waiting for the adoption of this report by the Treasury. We have now got to the year 1911, so that practically these men have been waiting from 1908 to 1911 for some improvement in their conditions, and

  1035
  so far as I can see they scorn as far off as ever. These men have a very real grievance. I suppose we may compare them with men who are employed in ordinary industrial circumstances who may have some reason to ask for an improvement in their condition. I never heard of a case in all my experience where a number of workpeople have petitioned their employer where that petition has been listened to and a report made, where the men have been kept for two or three years waiting for the result of an inquiry.
  I think these men have very reasonable cause for complaint. They complain that some parts of this report have been put into operation, but not those parts that represent any benefit to them. The parts averse to them have been put into operation, and the parts which they consider mean improvements in their conditions have been withheld, and seem likely to be withheld until the crack of doom. There is another point in regard to the London allowance. These men when brought from the provinces to work in any of the London provinces were given to understand that the difference between the cost of living and other expenses was supposed to amount to £40, and for a period of years this £40 was paid. Since this report has been drawn up this £40 has been reduced to £25 in 1910. The men naturally complain that this reduction has been brought into operation almost immediately and sent to the Treasury, whilst those recommendations which suggested improvements in their conditions have not yet been acted upon.
  A further point of complaint is that there are a very considerable number of these men employed in the London district, and the £25 difference only applies to some of them, and not to all. They would like to know if there is this difference between the cost of living and other expenses in the provinces and London, why the whole of the men engaged in the London area do not receive the £25, and why the £25 is not common to all? Another point they have asked me to draw attention to is that there has been one small improvement effected in their condition—almost a microscopical one—and it is that three men who have been working in a higher position have been advanced by £25 per annum. I do think some attention ought to be given to this matter. I have persistently asked questions for a very considerable period now in this House as to when this Report
  1036
  was likely to be put into effect, and if so, will it be within my own lifetime? Is there any hope at all that this Report is going to be put into operation? These men are getting tired of waiting for this Report, and I think a very great injustice has been caused by asking them to wait such an unconscionable long time. Of course, we all know that Members on the Treasury Bench do not have to wait for their advance of wages two or three years. The matter has only got to be suggested and we, like loyal Members of the House of Commons, immediately grant them their advances between £2,000 and £3,000 a year, and nobody complains. I think the whole of the Members of this House are in agreement that when a man does earn his salary, whatever that sum, he is entitled to have it, and nobody grudges him it. Therefore, I think these men, having waited this enormous long time, are really entitled to come consideration in this matter. They have drawn my attention to many sections of men of a similar class in the employ of the Admiralty whose wages since 1874 have been advanced 20 per cent. to 60 per cent., and it is obvious the cost of living has advanced. I therefore do ask that some promise shall be given on this question which will give the men some degree of satisfaction, and that this report shall not be held up for ever and ever amen, but that these men shall see something is being done and that somebody is not only knocking at the Treasury door but, if necessary, is kicking. If the ordinary boot will not do, I hope they will use the clog. The men have been exceedingly patient in this business, and they do ask that some attention should be given to their petition and that some hope should be offered them of some improvement in their condition during their lifetime. After all, these men are in the service of the Crown, and they have a right to a share in the improvement which is going on all round. The fact that they have remained stationary is a great cause of dissatisfaction among them. I therefore hope that in response to the modest appeal I have made this evening we may have some word of consolation from the First Lord and that some attention will be given to this question, so that, the men will have something to hope for in the immediate future with regard to an improvement in their condition.
  Mr. McKENNA: Before replying on the question of general policy, I had perhaps better dispose of the case referred to by

  1037
  the hon. Member who has just sat down. A Committee was appointed, and it sal and has reported, but my hon. Friend knows the report of the Committee has to be considered by the two Departments, and it is impossible for me to say anything more than that the question is still being prominently kept open. It would be impossible for me, as it affects other Departments beside my own, to make any more definite statement as to the conclusions to which they came. I cannot say more than that the Committee presided over by my right hon. Friend went into the case with the greatest care and his report on the matter is one which obviously deserves most careful attention.
  Mr. CHARLES DUNCAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to press upon the Treasury that these men have waited all these years.
  Mr. McKENNA: I can assure my hon. Friend I will do my best to sec the Departments concerned coincide in their views upon the subject, but I would ask my hon. Friend not to press me further than that. I think I might summarise what has been said in the earlier parts of the Debate upon the question of general policy under two heads. One was the question of secondary armament, and the other the question of the protection of our trade routes. I do not think I can do better on the question of secondary armament than adopt most, if not all, the statements made by the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) as to the history of it. It is perfectly true, as he staled, that the position of the secondary armament as we now understand it has really risen out of a condition in which there was a triple armament, primary, secondary and tertiary, and in most modern ships, and certainly in our ships, the secondary armament has been absorbed in. the primary armament. I do not think we are at issue about anything except the tertiary armament. The secondary armament-which some hon. Gentlemen would wish to see is usually described now as an anti-destroyer armament, and the real question between us is not whether there should or should not be a secondary armament of the old type, but whether the anti-destroyer armament should be stronger than it is in our present ships, namely, a 4-inch gun. I see the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) shakes his head, but I think I can explain that is really the difference between us. It is not a question of a secondary arma-
  1038
  ment as the secondary armament was understood when the "King Edward" was built. That question was settled long ago; it was settled by the right hon. Gentleman himself. The outstanding question now is whether the anti-destroyer armament should be more formidable than the 4-inch gun.
  The problem we have to consider is what is the work which the anti-destroyer gun has to perform, and that work must depend upon the type of the destroyer and the range of the torpedo. It is an unfortunate fact that the development of the torpedo in the last few years has been remarkable. It is quite true that at one lime the 12-pounder was fully sufficient as an anti-destroyer armament, and it is equally true that at a later stage the 4-in. gun was amply sufficient as an anti-destroyer armament, but the Board of Admiralty fully recognise it may very possibly be the case now—and the question will certainly be considered with a perfectly open mind by the Board—that the 4-in. gun is not a sufficient answer to a torpedo-boat destroyer carrying torpedoes with a range, not of 1,000 or 2,000 yards, but of many thousand yards. We require a gun with a considerable range, as you have to destroy your destroyer before it can get within range with its torpedo. The 4-inch gun, of course, has a range of 6,000 or 7,000 yards, but its hitting power at that distance is not so certain as a gun of a larger type. The problem, therefore, is at what range you can hit your destroyer with tolerable certainty.
  Mr. BALFOUR: It is not, of course, the whole question either raised by the hon. Member opposite or by myself. It is alleged by some tacticians that a fight between two "Dreadnoughts" might be liable to be decided by a tremendous rain of missiles which would be really of very little use at 7,000 or 8,000 yards, but which would be most effective at 2,000 or 3,000 yards.
  Mr. McKENNA: I am not going to pretend for one moment, if you lake two ships each with the same primary armament, and you add to one a secondary armament, 9.2 or 6-in. guns, that the second ship will not be the stronger of the two, but it is always a question of what you choose to have. I will take two ships. We have now got the "Orion," and before that we had the "St. Vincent." The right hon. Gentleman could have taken the "St. Vincent," with ten 12-inch guns, and he could have added perhaps sixteen 6-inch guns

  1039
  and used them as a secondary armament on the broadside in battle, and he would have got a ship—I am speaking from memory only—which would cost him precisely the same amount as the "Orion." The "Orion" gives him ten 13.5-in. guns, and the problem he has to solve is which is the better: the "St. Vincent" with ten 12-in. guns and sixteen 6-in. guns or the "Orion" with ten 13.5 guns. He must not take the "Orion" with ten 13.5 guns as against another ship with ten 13.5 guns plus sixteen 6-in. guns. He must compare what he would get for the same money. If he says, "I would spend another £200,000 and add twenty 6-in. guns to the 'Orion,'" I would tell him if I spend another £200,000 on a ship I can get the "Orion," not with ten 13.5 guns on the broadside, but with thirteen or fourteen 13.5 guns on the broadside. Is that not so?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, I think it is so.
  Mr. McKENNA: It always comes to a question, if you have a certain amount of money, of how you would spend it. Do we get a better ship in the "Orion" with ten 13.5 guns on the broadside or in the "St. Vincent" with ten 12-in. guns, eight on the broadside, and sixteen 6-in. guns, of which ten would be on the broadside? I would not ask anybody to give a hasty answer to that question, but that is the nature of the problem to be considered, and it is upon the answer to that question that the Admiralty have given their decision in favour of the type of construction recommended to the House. The Admiralty recommended that decision, I think infinitely to their credit, when the right Hon. Gentleman was Prime Minister. The question of the secondary armament, as I have said, has been answered by successive Boards in favour of absorbing the secondary armament in the primary armament. It must be understood that the question whether the 4-in. gun is big enough is left open, and that may be enlarged without altering my argument. What have other nations done? The latest information we have got with regard to Germany shows a secondary or tertiary armament of fourteen 5.9 guns and eighteen 21-pounders. The United States have twenty-one 5-in. gun? and nothing less except 3-pounders, which do not count. They are for an entirely different purpose. In France the latest type of vessel has twenty-two 5.5 guns; Russia has sixteen
  1040
  4.7; Italy has twenty 4.7, and in the case of a later ship twenty-two 4.7, and sixteen 12-pounders; Austria has twelve 5.9, and Japan is the only country which has really got a secondary armament in the sense suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, ten 6-inch and ten 4.7. The Japanese case has really been answered already in the Debate, for it has been pointed out that where you have a fleet of a sufficient size to provide separate vessels to do the different kinds of work, the ships which have to perform the various classes of duty may be provided with the single type of armament suitable for that duty. But Japan has not got a fleet of sufficient size to keep ships for separate purposes, and hence she has found it necessary to provide her vessels with secondary armaments. Proceeding with my list I see that Brazil has only twenty-two 4.7, and Argentina has twelve 6-inch and twelve 4-inch guns. I repeat that it is apparent that Japan is the only one which has a secondary armament in the sense in which the word was used by the right hon. Gentleman. She has only ten 6-inch and ton 4.7. With regard to the rest they have none of them, except. Germany, anything bigger than 24-pounders, and if our own 4-inch guns are taken into consideration, it may be seen that we are in no way behind any of the other Powers in our destroyer armaments.
  Lord C. BERE3FORD: Is it the policy of the Board of Admiralty to endeavour to repel torpedo destroyer attacks by destroyers or by armaments?
  Mr. McKENNA: The policy of the Board is to protect themselves against destroyer attack by counter-destroyer attack or by guns. We adopt the double policy. I do not understand the Noble Lord to suggest we should not adopt the plan of the destroyer attack. I think I can claim to have satisfied the House that with our 4-inch guns we have an adequate anti-destroyer armament.
  Mr. LEE: There is one point I would like to raise. Take two types of ships of equal tonnage. We will take the "Colossus" and compare it with one of the Japanese vessels. Each has a tonnage of about 22,000. Our vessel has ten 12-inch guns and sixteen 4.7; the Japanese has twelve 12-inch guns, ten 6-inch and ten 4.7. Why is it we cannot get these advantages in ships of equal tonnage and of approximately the same date?
  Mr. McKENNA: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me I will remind him that the "Colossus" and "Hercules" shipbuilding plan broke down two years ago, and what I am saying now relates to the programme of the present year. The hon. Gentleman will hardly expect me to go into a detailed justification of the programme of two years ago. The next question that was raised was that of the defence of our trade routes, and the particular aspect which was emphasised was that which would arise from the use of armed merchantmen which it was supposed would be suddenly commissioned at sea without any warning. The Leader of the Opposition was good enough to help me in one respect by reminding the House that it was quite possible this would be a matter on which one could only speak with very great difficulty. The House will not expect me to disclose the strategy of the Admiralty, our exact state of knowledge, or the ground for that knowledge of what has been done. I think, however, I can safely say this, that the arming of merchantmen does not really constitute any new factor. If we should be engaged in war one of the first functions which the Navy has to perform, after the protection of our commerce and keeping the sea open for themselves, is to close the sea to the enemy and to endeavour to destroy his trade. His merchant ships, whether they were armed or not, would be located, marked down, and, I hope, captured. Of course everything must depend on the position of the ships at the particular moment, and I can only say this that the Admiralty do their best to keep themselves thoroughly well informed of the position at any moment of any ship likely to be dangerous and of the courses open to her. If such danger exists I think, I may say, we are provided with adequate means of defence. The House will understand it is perfectly impossible for me to disclose here what steps have been taken and the state of information at which we have arrived, whether against this or that Power.
  It would be absurd to suppose that the technical advisers of the Admiralty are misinformed on these points, or that they have not taken full account of all the steps necessary to protect our commerce. I agree with most of what the hon. Gentleman said when he spoke of the necessity of safeguarding our trade on the outbreak of war. This is a consideration which the Board of Admiralty has ever before it, and the whole of its policy and strategy is bound up with the idea that at the outbreak of war we shall safeguard our own
  1042
  trade and destroy the trade of the enemy. The Noble Lord smiles. I think I might reply to him in the words he used when he took note of the fact that I smiled at an observation he had made. I may tell him I am speaking not my own views on the subject, but I am stating the steps which will be taken by the technical advisers of the Board, who are as fully apprised of the dangers and of the possibilities of danger as the Noble Lord himself. The Noble Lord has frequently used an expression which he will forgive me for saying is somewhat misleading, and that is that our trade routes are not protected, because he does not see cruisers steaming up and down them and acting like policemen on a beat. That is not the use to which we put our cruisers. We put our policemen where the danger is and where the possible robber is to be found. It is no good having policemen marching up and down the middle of the street; you want them constantly aware of the suspicious houses and suspicious quarters which need to be watched, and you want them placed in the neighbourhood of the districts where there is danger.
  Lord C. BERESFORD: I smiled because exactly the same remark has been made in past years. We were told, in fact, that the cruisers were not wanted any more, and that no more would be built. As a matter of fact, no more were built for two or three years. I said that was a mistake at the time, and, although we were told that that was the recommendation of the technical advisers of the Board of Admiralty my opinion was that they were wrong, and I submit that they are still in the wrong, as you will have to build more cruisers.
  Mr. McKENNA: The Noble Lord is rather going into the controversies of an antediluvian period. I beg him to come down to the year 1911 and to see what we are doing. It is all very well to talk about what occurred six or eight years ago. The question is whether we have enough cruisers to meet our necessities. We do not need to see them every few miles; we could never get enough cruisers built to satisfy such a demand as that. The question is have we got enough cruisers to watch every possible source of danger. I say that we have. After the most careful examination of the facts I say there is no justification for anxiety on that point, and you may be assured that the Board of Admiralty has never lost sight of the importance of that point, and would not

  1043
  hesitate for one moment to ask the House for anything that was necessary to secure our trade. I say that we are satisfied, the Board are satisfied, that we have made adequate provision, not for all time. The Noble Lord (Lord C. Beresford) must not say next year when there is another programme with more cruisers, "Oh, you said last year you had enough, and now you are asking for more."
  Lord C. BERESFORD: We shall not complain.
  Mr. McKENNA: No, you will not complain. I have little doubt that next year's programme will include more cruisers, and the year after that more cruisers. We shall have to build cruisers, not to have them on the line of march like policemen, but in order to meet the cruisers which are being laid down by other Powers. As they built cruisers so we shall, because the element of danger would be increased against us if we were not prepared with cruisers to meet that danger. I hope I have given a sufficient answer on these points. I have endeavoured to deal with them in a fair spirit. My only anxiety was to allay what I recognise is a thoroughly respectable anxiety upon these points, and to assure the House that the Board of Admiralty will not neglect their duty in regard to the questions of the trade routes of this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) asked one or two questions with regard to carpenters and the difference between the pay of shipwrights and engineers. That is a matter which has been considered. I must remind him that it is a matter of choice by the men themselves, or rather by the lads themselves, which trade they will take, and whether they are engineers or shipwrights they know what the conditions of pay are at the time. There is no unfairness in that respect, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I quite agree with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Wilkie) that it is very difficult to get in a reference to matters affecting the dockyards in a Debate in this House. Whilst I sympathise with him in what he said about the carpenters and other artisan ratings in the Royal Navy, I am sure he will excuse me when I rose and asked if he was in order. I think this is the first time for many years we have had
  1044
  an opportunity of discussing in this House Vote so far as it relates to personnel of the Naval Estimates.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Every year.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Last year a day was given, but the whole time was taken up with construction. Three years before that the Debate was closured.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No, no. It was always debated.
  Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I will not dispute the matter. But, at any rate, we have very few opportunities of discussing matters connected with the dockyards. I do not know why that is done, why the dockyard Members should not have an opportunity of discussing matters which are of vital importance to this country. One can well understand the anxiety of the Government to avoid discussion, both of the questions of construction and personnel, seeing that until quite recently the naval policy of the Government was to limit construction to a degree which we now know was incompatible with the safety of the Empire, and to limit the status of the personnel by suspending establishment in the Royal dockyards. Thanks to the Imperial Press Conference, which I do not think attracted sufficient attention in this House at the time, and the lesson learnt by the Government at the last General Election, they have awakened from the slumber into which they were lulled and into which the Labour party would desire to lull them again.
  Now that they have endeavoured to make up leeway, naturally their supporters below the Gangway rebel against the Estimates. Four years ago they were told that a very much smaller amount would suffice to meet all requirements. But what we have to consider is not so much the size of the Estimates as whether the amount asked for will meet all possible contingencies, whether the shipbuilding programme is sufficient to meet any reasonably possible combination that might be brought against us on the high seas. The Estimates provide for a certain number of ships which are to be laid down during the ensuing winter months, and to be completed in the spring of 1914. By that time Austria, Germany and Italy will have a combined fleet of "Dreadnoughts" numbering twenty-nine. We shall have a fleet of "Dreadnoughts" numbering thirty. A mere margin of one.

  1045
  I venture to think, looking into the future— for the first Lord has told us that in the future only "Dreadnoughts" will count— that this margin is not sufficient. Certainly in the spring of 1914 the position "will be very different from what was known, and is still known, as the two-Power standard. It will be very different from the two keels to one standard. It will not even be a standard which will meet any reasonably possible combination, that may be brought against us, and in these circumstances I think we have some reason for asking the Government, before this Vote is passed, to make some further statement with regard to the standard in "Dreadnoughts" which they consider necessary for the safety of the Empire, and to preserve the security of our trade routes. Looking at the figures, both with regard to expenditure and the number of cruisers, I think not only is there a reduction made in the amount that we have to expend on cruisers, and on construction, but also a serious reduction in the amount to be voted for building new cruisers, which number four instead of five. I do not propose to refer at length to the Declaration of London. I feel I should not be in order in doing so. But no one can disregard the declared intention during the Naval Conference in London of the foreign Powers to convert their merchant vessels into men-o'-war during war time. I know that the Government do not allow that the Declaration of London would sanction this proceeding, but all the same, it cannot be said that the Declaration renders impossible the carrying out of the views expressed on this point by the foreign Powers at the Naval Conference. I regard the present situation, so far as the protection of our commerce is concerned, as very serious. Certainly the programme laid down by the Government is quite inadequate to protect the trade routes. If you will look at the number of cruisers in 1903 and compare it with the programme for 1911 you will find that the total number in the North and South Atlantic was in 1903 fourteen cruisers, five sloops and three gunboats: to-day we are satisfied with seven cruisers and one gunboat; and the position is all the more serious when we remember that the Government have told us that the greater part of our foodstuffs is carried in British bottoms.
  Turning from shipbuilding to personnel two facts stare us in the face. On the one side we have a large increase in the number of men employed in the Royal dock-
  1046
  yards, and, on the other hand, a decrease in the number of men on the establishment. When the establishment was suspended the number of established men in round numbers was 7,000. Now it is only 6,600, and even that figure is to be cut down still further by the Treasury, who have definitely fixed the establishment at 6,500. I need not remind the House that it is of the greatest importance in time of war to have a sufficient number of skilled men, skilled in all the technicalities of shipbuilding, to repair ships that are disabled. I am told that the Government purpose to depend on men who would be released from construction employment to make up for the deficiency. I do not think that is a sound policy. There is nothing to prevent wages going up, and a good deal of that would fall very heavily upon the taxpayer. Those who would have to select the men must select the best men, but they would have no opportunity in time of war to inquire into their qualifications, and it would be far better to have in time of peace a larger establishment of tried and skilled workmen who may be depended upon equally in time of war as in time of peace. Moreover, we have to-day a larger Navy than we had in 1905, and with the larger Navy the establishment should be larger, yet the Government have seen fit to adopt the exactly opposite policy. Why have they done so? With regard to the question of suspension, soon after I came into the House of Commons I asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what he intended to do with regard to those men who become eligible for establishment during the period when the establishment was suspended, whether it was his intention to see that their privileges with regard to eligibility were not prejudiced by the Government action. His answer to me was that that, was his intention, and now I am glad to hear from the Financial Secretary (Dr. Macnamara) to-day that the matter has been very seriously considered, and that the Government are going to extend the age of establishment eligibility from forty-five to fifty. Presumably, I suppose, it was done the sake of giving to those men who passed the age during the time of suspension an opportunity of qualifying for establishment after it had been reintroduced.
  8.0. P. M.
  There is one point which I would like the Financial Secretary to note. He is very kind, and I know why he desires to raise the age from forty-five to fifty. What will be the effect of raising the age from forty-

  1047
  five to fifty? Surely it cuts both ways. It will be open to the Government to delay establishing men until they are nearly fifty years of age. Will not that affect the pensions of these men? Will it not also reduce the establishment still further, or, rather, would it not give a ground to the Treasury for saying that while we have an establishment of 6,500 to-day, to-morrow we shall only require 6,000? I hope that will not be the effect, but the concession is open to that construction, and from what one hears and what one has seen I do not think it is the policy of the Government to foster establishment. On the other hand, their policy is to cut down the establishment. I think the report of the writers, which has been drawn up by the Financial Secretary, will have something to say upon the question of the establishment.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: How do you know?
  Sir C. KI NLOCH-COOKE: I only think; I do not know. I should not say I know anything before such an authority as the I Financial Secretary to the Admiralty, but I think it will be found that the question of establishment will be referred to in that Report, and the writers will be asked to give up any claim to be put on the establishment in return for some other concession. It would be an advantage to the country if establishment could be given to the men in the Works Department as it is given to men in the other departments of the dockyards. With regard to dockyard petitions we are told we must not expect anything exciting. I think the time has gone by for expecting anything exciting with regard to dockyard petitions from the Admiralty. I do not say that the petitions of last year were not answered very fairly in some respects, although I cannot altogether agree with the, Financial Secretary that raising the maximum rate of wages for a skilled labourer to 30s. has been altogether a success. I am quite ready that any skilled labourer should receive a. maximum wage of 30s., but I should be better pleased if it was possible for more than a very small number to obtain that maximum. So far very few men in the dockyards have been able to reach the maximum. Then, again, the classification of skilled labourers interferes very much with other classifications. No one knows exactly what he is in the dockyard. He is called a skilled labourer by some people
  1048
  and something else by others. That is a mailer which the Financial Secretary might well turn his attention to.
  With regard to unskilled labourers in the dockyard they only get a guinea a week. I suggest that that is not a sufficient wage for a man to maintain his wife and children and to live decently. I think the Admiralty ought certainly to raise the wages of the unskilled labourers. I am afraid little attention has been given to this subject. I have been told over and over again by the First Lord that the cost of living in one dockyard town differs very much from the cost of living in another, and I am particularly told, with regard to the borough that I represent, that the cost of living there is very different from that at Woolwich. I think that is a matter which the Financial Secretary might well inquire into. It may be that a few years ago, when the Report to which I refer was drawn up, the cost of living was different. The cost of living now, at any rate in the borough that I represent, is very little less than the cost of living at Woolwich. With regard to particular petitions to which I would call attention, I should like to mention that of the chargemen. You have some chargemen getting 1s. 6d. while others only get 1s. for identical work in every respect. I suggest, that the Admiralty would do well to give all chargemen the higher rate of 1s. 6d. Then other wages that require revision are plumbers, who should receive extra payment for work done in confined spaces, leather hose makers, sawyers, joiners, sailmakers, storehousemen, and I could mention several others. I should like to see some arrangements made to accelerate promotion in shipwrights' wages. Shipwrights are a very important rating, and no body of men have done more to fit themselves to the requirements of the day than dockyard shipwrights, and yet their wages are very different from those paid by outside firms. Whatever the reason may be for paying lower wages in the dockyard to the wages paid outside, the Government cannot get over the fact that it was they themselves who insisted upon the eight hours' day in the dockyard, and because the Government have insisted upon it that is no reason why they should curtail the men's wages. There is a great discrepancy between the wages paid in the dockyard and outside. There is a great grievance among the men themselves, and I should very much like to hear the opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty on that

  1049
  subject. I should like to know why it is that the wages of the men in the dockyard are so much lower than the wages in similar trades in private yards. I do not want to be told that in one case they work eight hours and in another case they work longer for the simple reason that it is the Government who have insisted that they should work eight hours. No doubt if they were asked to work a little longer time to obtain a higher wage they would be very pleased to do it. But do, please, let us have some explanation of the discrepancy in the wages paid in the dockyard and those paid for similar work outside. Then as to discharges. Why do not the Government so arrange their work as to prevent wholesale discharges? Such a policy is very detrimental to efficiency and very detrimental to the men themselves.
  Major GUEST: I should like to draw attention to one or two points connected with labour in the dockyards. I should like to touch, first, on the question of skilled labour. In reply to a petition which the men presented to the Admiralty in 1900 the Admiralty promised that twenty men in the dockyard that I represent should be placed on the maximum rate of wage, and that twenty established men should also reach the higher rate. Up to the present time only nineteen hired men have been placed on the higher rate, and only four men of the establishment have been promoted. I would ask the Admiralty authorities to do their utmost to fulfil their promises and to place the complete number upon that maximum rate, because men are leaving on retirement every day, and the bonuses that they draw are calculated on the amount of wages they are paid at the time they leave the service. This is a matter which very much affects the condition of the men, and they consider that the promises which were made to them should be fulfilled. Then I should like to ask the Admiralty to consider the question of how the men are selected to come on this maximum wage. At present they are selected without the men themselves knowing what conditions they must fulfil to justify that selection. I would ask the Admiralty in making these selections to take into consideration the standard of the piecework these men have before them, provided always that their character is as good as other men, and not let the matter be dependent on selection pure and simple, which invariably has led to heart-burning and disappointment. If that could be
  1050
  brought into consideration it would be a great advantage and satisfaction to the men who are working for the Government. I should like to touch for a moment on the position of the chargemen and shipwrights. There we find similar men carrying out similar work on different sides possibly of the same ship which they are constructing, receiving different rates of pay. This has caused very great and very real discontent among the, men themselves, and they have made it clear that they would infinitely prefer equality of wage between men who are doing the same work to the introduction which was made in 1906, of a proportion of the men being on a higher rate than others. If it is impossible to equalise matters possibly some classification might be. introduced whereby men would get on the higher rate of wage either by excellent service or by length of service, and not purely and simply by selection.
  Another point which the men have made representations about is the question of apprentices. It occurs that two lads may sit at the same competitive examination of enter a dockyard. One boy may succeed and the other may fail. The lad who succeeds joins the dockyard as an apprentice, and his service towards a pension docs not commence to count until the conclusion of his apprentice service. On the other hand the lad who fails in his examination and who enters the yard as a rivet boy at the same age as his rival finds that his service towards a pension counts from the date on which he entered the yard. Therefore the boy who has not succeeded in beating his rival in open competition has the advantage over him in that respect.
  And it being a quarter past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and under Standing Order No. 8, further proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  MIDLAND RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. JAMES THOMAS: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the question the words, "upon this day three months."

  1051
  I regret the circumstances which necessitate this Motion for more reasons than one. In the first place the Bill itself is of vital importance to a large number of people. The Members representing the particular constituencies affected by the Bill are so anxious to vote for the measure in the interests of their constituents, that it will be very difficult for them to express their opinion on the merits of the case I am about to put forward. I regret the circumstances which necessitate the Motion more especially when we recognise that I his is the only method by which we can secure justice for a large number of railway men. Here is a great corporation in the Midland Railway Company who ought to recognise that the interests of the company and the interests of its employés are identical, and who at least ought to make it a first duty to see that the relations between employers and employés are of the most amicable character possible. I am glad to know that there is in this House at the present moment some one connected with the Midland Railway Company. After hearing what we shall say in support of our Motion, I hope he will be able to express on behalf of that company at least that the practices of which we complain shall not be allowed to continue.
  A few weeks ago in moving a reduction of the salary of the President of the Board of Trade, I took occasion to say that in my opinion the Conciliation Boards at present in operation on our railways would be rejected if the men on the different railways had the opportunity of recording a vote. I did not make that statement because I desire the abolition of Conciliation Boards. On the contrary I am a strong advocate of the principle of conciliation, and it is because I want these boards to be of some value to the men, to be the one medium for adjusting differences between employers and employés that I am so anxious for their success. But I made the statement because the Midland Railway Company more than any other railway company in this country is responsible for so disheartening and disgusting the men that they have lost all hope of redress under what is known as the Conciliation Agreement. What are the practices? Following the great agitation a few years ago there were boards set up for the purpose of considering differences between the men and the various railway companies. On the Midland Railway certain grades in
  1052
  the service were able to come to an agreement with their employers without going to arbitration, but a large number of grades went to arbitration. An award was given, and whilst it did not secure for the men all they thought they were entitled to, or what they felt their case demanded, yet having gone to arbitration, the responsible officials of the men laid it down that the men would act honourably on the decision come to. Immediately following that decision the railway company resorted to means by which they endeavoured to keep the men from receiving the benefits this award gave to them.
  In the first place, I would mention that for the last thirty years goods guards, who are a large number of men on the Midland Railway, have enjoyed what is known as a guaranteed week. That is to say, they are compelled to devote the whole of their time to the company's service. Unlike any other class of employés, they are not allowed to engage in any other kind of work, and in return for that the railway company guarantee them a week's wage. In actual practice it has meant that during the last twenty years very few men indeed have worked other than their week, and the men in arriving at a settlement had in mind the past practice of the company. They naturally felt that in coming to an agreement with their employers the first duty of the employers would be to see that what hitherto had been, the practice would be continued under the agreement. One of the provisions of the settlement was that before any man could be reduced in position he would be given a week's notice of such reduction, the object of that being that, if there occurred a serious trade depression, a strike, or a lock-out which seriously affected the work, the company would then have the right to give a man a week's notice that they would reduce his position. On the approach of the very first bank holiday following that agreement the railway company issued notices to the whole of their guards in the London district telling them that in consequence of the bank holiday they would be reduced 8s. per week for the next week. In this House I protested and the hon. Gentleman who spoke on behalf of the Board of Trade said he was sure that the Midland Railway Company would endeavour to meet the position. On the occasion of the first protest in this House the company's proposal was limited to the London area, but since then at every holiday the goods guards on the Midland Railway have received notice

  1053
  that they were to be reduced 8s. a week I during that week. There might be some justification if it could be shown that these reductions were absolutely necessary in consequence of depression of trade, but I am going to submit that if in any week, month, or year, you can show that a large number of men are working excessively long hours and making long periods of overtime while other men are being reduced, the plea as to depression of trade cannot be justified in such circumstances. From 30th April to 29th December of last year in the London area alone of the Midland Railway Company there were no fewer than 250 men signed on duty twice in one day. In the same period there were thirteen men signed on duty with under nine hours' rest, 174 with only nine hours' rest and 563 under ten hours' rest, all in a period when over 3,500 men were being reduced because it was alleged of slackness in trade. Let me examine it from another standpoint. In the same period there were 850 men on duty twelve hours in one day; there were 179 men on duty more than twelve hours; there were thirty-seven men on duty over thirteen hours, and for that same period there were 13,248 hours' overtime worked in one month; and at the same time there were hundreds of men reduced because it was alleged that there was no work for them. I submit that there is a clear illustration, and there is absolute proof on close investigation, of an abuse on the part of the company of an honourable agreement at which they themselves and the men arrived. But that is not all. For over twenty-five years the Midland Railway Company have employed a large grade known as shunters. It was not only a laborious class of work, but a highly dangerous class of work. When you remember that one out of every nineteen shunters in the year 1309 was either killed or injured it is hardly necessary for me to lay emphasis on the dangerous nature of the men's work. These men were employed on different parts of the Midland system. At. Leicester, following this agreement that I have already described, the Midland Railway Company issued a notice that on and after a certain date these men's hours would be increased from eight to ten per day.
  Under the terms of the agreement they dare not increase the hours of shunters, because there was a fixed agreement as to what the hours of shunters should be. But, in order to get over that difficulty, they renamed these men, and said: "On and
  1054
  after a certain date we will call you train receivers; you will do precisely the same work; there will be no alteration whatever in the nature of your employment; but, in order that we can get out of an honourable obligation, we will call you train receivers, and increase your hours of work by two per day." The men naturally protested; I myself with a deputation of the men interviewed the Board of Trade on this particular point. We pointed out the absolute injustice to the men. We pointed out that if this practice were to continue it would only mean that the railway company should rename every grade and they would get out of every obligation and condition under the award. In short, that if this practice was to be upheld by the Board of Trade under this scheme it was useless for the men themselves to go to arbitration on the point. But whilst that applies to the Leicester shunters, it also applies to other shunters in different parts of the country. And, to show the justification of our case, long after this took place, over twelve months following the representations that were made to the Board of Trade, the Midland general manager sent for a deputation of these men, had them to London, and said "We will pay you back pay for all the time," which was a clear admission that what I stated in. this House nearly twelve months ago was perfectly true, and after twelve months the Midland Railway Company had to recognise it. But let us examine how they did it. Although they gave these men their back pay dating from the time of the reduction, and the men were not only satisfied but naturally jubilant with the result of the negotiations, yet immediately they got back to their depot the same general manager who recognised, by paying them back pay, the injustice which they had received, immediately gave-orders that they should be removed from that particular station. It is perfectly true that they had the option of staying at the job that they had done for years on eight hours a day, and at 30s. a week, but it was the option of staying at ten hours a day and 25s. a week.
  I submit that that is not a fair proposition. I submit it for more than one reason. These men are married men with families. They have the family associations. It may be that they may have lads working and apprentices, and unless there is some real solid ground for removing a man, no railway company ought to take an advantage such as that which the Midland Railway

  1055
  Company took in this particular case. The same thing, of course, applies to draymen. At Wolverhampton the Midland Railway Company were bound by an award that gave the draymen 22s. a week. It is not necessary for me to argue that 22s. a week is not a very elaborate sum. No one can pretend for a moment that life is a bed of roses to draymen earning that amount of money. But at Wolverhampton the Midland Railway Company have been employing men in periods ranging from six months to six years and never putting them on the permanent staff, the object presumably being that when once they became permanent they came under what is known as the Lord Cromer award, and therefore they could demand certain conditions of service. But by keeping them on as casual men, the company got out of the terms of that award. But what follows? Within the last six months eight men at Wolverhampton have received notice that they are to remove to another town. Again I say that no one could complain of any employer of labour endeavouring to find work for his men if there was depression in that particular town. On the contrary, I would commend their action as being not only businesslike, but humane. But in the case of every man that was removed, every man who had to pack up his home and clear out of that particular town, instead of having to be moved in consequence of the depressed trade, his place was filled by a casual man in order to get out of the obligation under that award. I think I have said sufficient under this head to show that there is real ground for complaint on the part of the men, and I venture to say that when the chairman of the directors at the last half-yearly meeting reported, and was cheered in consequence, the large reductions in the wages and salaries paid, very few shareholders or even directors had any idea of the methods that had been employed in order to bring about this particular reduction.
  I come to a more serious position than either of these. There has been on the Midland Railway for some considerable time a system of intimidation in operation. When these shunters complained, not to their society of trade union officials, but to the elected representative of the Conciliation Board, one of their own fellow-workers, one of the men in the company's employ, when they asked him as secretary of their grade to write to the company, drawing attention to what I have already
  1056
  described, one would have thought that, seeing there was no outside interference, no wicked trade unionist involved, but simply one of their own humble employés, the company would, have appreciated the men's action in taking the constitutional step of appealing in that direction. But immediately they did that Mr. Paget said in consequence of your interference, notwithstanding the fact that hitherto we have only increased your hours two per day, we will now reduce your wages 5s. per week. That immediately followed the intervention on the men's behalf by the secretary to the Conciliation Board. I recognise that that is a serious statement to make, but I also recognise that, having closely investigated and proved the circumstances of this intimidation, it is for this House to say that they will not uphold action of this description. The same thing applies to a goods guard. Immediately the goods guard wrote to the same secretary asking him to intervene on his behalf, he was threatened with dismissal, and eventually ho was reduced a shilling per week for no other reason than that he had allowed someone to interfere on his behalf. I submit that this is a course of procedure that must not continue. It is something not creditable to the Midland Railway Company.
  It is not limited to those cases I have enumerated. During the arbitration proceedings it was necessary for those of us who were conducting the case to get evidence. It was necessary that we should get the employés themselves to give evidence in order to build up our case. A fireman went into the witness-box to prove certain things in connection with his employment. He was a man of unblemished character, with a clean record for eighteen years. Very soon following his appearance in the witness-box on behalf of the men, he was sought out by Mr. Paget, who used language that was a disgrace to anyone calling himself a gentleman. He asked the man whether he was a member of the society, and told him it would be better if he was leaving. I am not giving the names of the men for obvious reasons, so rampant is the feeling created. I have another case, that of a man who was three minutes late on duty, otherwise he was a man with a clean record; but although ho was only three minutes late on duty ho was reduced 9s. a week for that offence. I recognise that it is not for me and that it is not for this House to go into questions of discipline as between employers and employed. I fully recognise that many of

  1057
  these cases may appear mere matters of detail, but they are none the less burning grievances that are bound sooner or later to cause the men to revolt. It is not only in the running department or the traffic department that this practice goes on, but the same things are prevalent through the whole of the Derby works. Every time I go to that constituency I get hundreds of complaints on the same head. I try to persuade the men that there is a constitutional method of dealing with these questions. Only a few weeks ago we had a threatened strike, but I went down and I persuaded the men not to strike. But there is a limit to human endurance, and in these cases the limit has been reached.
  This is the second occasion in regard to the Midland Railway on which it has been necessary for me to ask the assistance of the House of Commons. Here is this great corporation, that ought at least to set an example to smaller employers, acting in this way. If there are directors who are not conversant with these matters it is for them to inquire, and to see that those who are vested with authority shall no longer prostitute that authority. If, on the other hand, even this protest will not have an effect, then I shall take an early opportunity of asking this House of Commons to say that no railway company, no one railway company at least, shall be the means of destroying the great scheme of conciliation set up for the purpose of adjusting differences between capital and labour without this House expressing an pinion upon it. It is for this reason, whilst I again repeat that I extremely regret the circumstances that compel me to make this protest for the men, I sincerely hope, on behalf of those for whom I speak, on behalf of the thousands of employés, and in the interests of the Midland Railway Company itself, it will never be necessary in future to bring forward the case that I have presented this evening.
  Mr. HUDSON: I beg to second the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and in doing so I should like to call the attention of the House to the importance of the position as it has been stated between the company and the men. The time is not far distant when we were told that the men could count on security of service, but to-day, looking at the history of the chairman and directorate of the Midland Company—because I always hold the directors responsible for the act of their officers
  1058
  —these men, who have been in the service fifteen, twenty, and thirty years, do not now know from day to day how soon they are going to be reduced in their status. That is apparent from the statement which has been made. The older men in the service get notice of reduction. They may be reduced one, two, three, four, or even five days in a week, or they might happen not to be reduced at all, but they are all liable, when a notice is given, to be reduced in spite of the length of their service. Consequently you have a position in which servitude counts for nothing. It has become a very grave question, and one which is not justified by the figures which have been quoted. Take the eight months for 1910, and there was no necessity for such a wholesale reduction in this class of men when we examine the position. The number of men who were on duty up to twelve hours is not less than 815. Ten hours is the standard day, and consequently every one of those 815 was on two hours per day overtime. Then there was a considerable number of men on duty for thirteen hours. I would ask those who speak on behalf of the company to consider the seriousness of the position when we find that during the period which has been mentioned there was no less than 13,248 hours worked by these men overtime. That works out on the men employed to 3,245 instances of overtime, and yet a considerable number of men have their wages reduced to 22s. per week, while, according to service and character, they should receive 30s. per week. In fact on the company's own showing, it would appear that there was room during the eight months of last year for 220 more men to be working at the ordinary rate of pay which they had earned by service.
  Even the Board of Trade return for the month of October shows that during that month, with the deductions of the intervals of four hours and more deducted from the actual time from signing on to signing off, that there were 168 cases for the month. Let us remember that the Board of Trade return is never excessive, and they never exceed the number. When we consider all the time of traveling and the time relieved, as they call it, from active service, and if we add the actual figures from signing on to signing off, then we would have a very different tale indeed. We think we ought to press, at least that all those hours should be returned in the Board of Trade returns and not to have the deductions at all. I know that much can be said as to what is termed

  1059
  the improved method of transit, and I am sure we do not for a single moment wish to stand in the way of the evolution of the methods of the manipulation of traffic. But we do say this, that it should be fairly administered and not administered with a ruthless hand and reckless as to how much men suffer in consequence. There is another feature of this matter. It is quite true that the administration is merely in its infancy and in its experimental stage, with a system having its centre at Derby in one instance, and at another place upon the line. The question of loading trains fully to the maximum hauling capacity of an engine is rightly the company's business with due safeguards and due consideration for those who handle the traffic.
  I notice this year with all the arrangements which have been made, and I do not say that there has been no care at all taken, there is no less than seventy-nine cases of breaks-away owing to the weakness of coupling apparatus; or on the other hand it must have been that the trains have been too heavily loaded. That number is the Board of Trade return. That is a serious matter in the operation of traffic, and must be reckoned with by somebody. When I find that among the railway companies of the United Kingdom this stands second in the list then I think it is quite time that they should consider that side of the question, and that there is a good deal of danger attached to this. With regard to Conciliation Boards, I think it has been rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby that this company do not show any fair and amicable spirit in their working, but rather a hostile spirit to the whole scheme. That being so it is a very serious matter not only for the men but for this House. I know that some companies, and probably this one to some extent, are not pleased because matters have been pushed through all the machinery of the Arbitration Court. It seems, however, to us at least that the two grades that did not go to arbitration, that is the goods guards and the shunters, and who got an agreement outside of it which terminated on the 31st December of last year, do not seem to have shared any better than the rest of the men, or rather worse if anything. Consequently it makes it more difficult to know or to learn from the action of the company what is the real method they want. Arbitration does not seem to suit them, the Conciliation Board method does not seem to
  1060
  suit them, and when an arrangement has been arrived at by mutual agreement with a sectional board that does not seem to suit them. They seem to entertain a hostile spirit towards the men. Consequently I say the matter becomes more serious in regard to this company than with some of the others. The re-grading of the men which has been mentioned is a matter for which I think the Board of Trade itself should take the responsibility. "We had issued a short time ago a statistical return of the accidents for 1910. I do not think that even the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade if he overhauled that document would find in the whole return such a grade as train receivers. When these people merely change the designation of a body of men from one name to another in order to avoid responsibility, I think it a case for the Board of Trade to take up, and I hope that they will do so.
  It is quite true that the circumstances attending the manipulation of traffic on our railways are changing, but the work is not changing, except that it is becoming heavier, more responsible, and more exacting. There is the same work to be done, with a greater amount of pressure brought to bear upon the men. I would ask that the attention of the Board of Trade should be specially directed to this matter. I trust that not only the Midland Company, but all other companies, will come to a more reasonable frame of mind with regard to treating with the conciliation boards which have been established. It is most essential if peace is to be secured in the industrial world. They may think that at the present time the spirit of the men is crushed out, but it may not always be so. There is the possibility of even a trodden worm turning again, and, if it does, it might be no easy matter to get the spirit of revolt allayed. I do not think there have been any men on any railway in the country so badly treated as these. It is only about four years ago that 140 of the goods guards, with up to twenty-five or thirty-five years' service, were dismissed straight off. No adequate reason was ever given, and there is no adequate reason now for a good deal of the reduction from one grade to another. We have shunters reduced to porters, and yet a very large amount of overtime is being worked by those who are still left in the service. For these reasons I take the opportunity of seconding the Motion of my hon. Friend. I hope that those who take the responsibility of answering for the com-

  1061
  pany will at least take care that there is a fair hearing in future as between masters and men. I beg to second.
  9.0 P.M.
  Lord CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: I do not intend to place any obstacle in the way of the Second Reading of this Bill, but I rise because this is the only opportunity of bringing forward a question in which I am deeply interested. A great many of the men for whom hon. Members opposite have just spoken reside in my Constituency, and it would be impossible to find a more hard-working or more self-respecting body of men, or a body of men who give better work for a wage which, though constant, is extremely small. If any body of men are worthy of just and honourable treatment it is the great body of men who work for the Midland Railway Company. I know there is great dissatisfaction among these men, and on the facts brought forward by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) that dissatisfaction is amply justified. It is hardly worthy of a great company presided over by a body of hon. Gentlemen to practice evasions of Lord Cromer's award of the character to which hon. Members have referred. I find it very difficult to believe that the policy adopted lately is the policy of the directors generally. I cannot help thinking that it is the policy of a very young", very active, and very clever young man who is now looking after their affairs. I am sure that if my hon. Friend who represents the Midland Railway gives a guarantee that the directors will look into the matter, and do their best to administer their policy in accordance with the spirit of Lord Cromer's award, the House will be satisfied. I really hope that the hon. Member and his co-directors will look into the matter.
  A question to which hon. Members opposite have not referred is the treatment of the casual workers in the goods yards. Instead of going to the Labour Exchanges, and giving the recognised rate of wages for casual work, the company, in Nottingham and other places, have a number of men hanging round their gates, and when they take them on they pay them only the miserable wage of 3½d. an hour. That is not a proper wage for a great company like the Midland to pay. It is not a proper wage to be paid for casual work by a strong corporation yielding handsome dividends. I hope that my hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Hills), who is, as the House knows, thoroughly in sympathy with the workers in most things—in fact, he and I sit
  1062
  together on the Executive Committee the Anti-Sweating League—will look into this matter, and, if possible, pay a wage which cannot come under the designation, as the present rate certainly does, of a sweating wage.
  Mr. HILLS: I have the honour to represent the Midland Railway Company in this House, and I can assure the House I do not in the least complain of the discussion; in fact I welcome it. I am very glad to have the opportunity to meet all the complaints that have been brought forth. I fully recognise that this is the only opportunity that Members who take an interest in labour questions have for ventilating these subjects, and I hope before I sit down—though I fear on all points I cannot expect to satisfy hon. Members—that I shall carry with me the general sense of the House. To come straight to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. J. H. Thomas). He attacked the Midland Railway Company on the ground that they had tried to upset the award given by the Conciliation Board by unfair attacks upon the men, and unfair use of their powers by reducing the men in rank. He took three cases to prove his point. I will take all the cases in turn. The first case that I shall deal with is the case of the Leicester shunters. I must ask the House to bear with me for a few minutes because I have to explain certain details about the working of the line. Until quite recent times all goods traffic that came from the north for stations to the south of Leicester were sent into the goods yard at Leicester. They were there re-sorted into trains, and sent to their different destinations. In fact, trains were broken up in the goods yard at Leicester and re-formed into trains for stations south of Leicester. That employed a large staff of shunters.
  It did not work very well, and recently a different system was introduced whereby the breaking up of trains was carried to Syston, a station north of Leicester, and not Leicester itself. This involved an increase of the shunters employed at Syston, and a decrease of the shunters employed at Leicester. In the work of the shunters two classes of men were employed. A shunter is a man who is paid 30s., who works an eight hours day, and is a man employed to break up trains, and sort out the carriages according to their destination. The lower grade of train receivers are men who have to shunt the whole of the train, and are not responsible for breaking

  1063
  it up. I think the House will understand that the shunters' work is more skilled work, and therefore the shunter is paid a higher wage, and works a shorter time. It is not the case, I can assure the House, as alleged by the Member for Derby, that the Midland Company have specially created a bogus class of railway servants in order to defeat Lord Cromer's award. The two classes of men do quite separate work, and I think the House will realise that they are two distinct classes; that the work should be performed by two different classes of men. I assure the House that this was not a change made in order to defeat the award. This reorganisation at Leicester meant the employment of fewer shunters at Leicester; that seven shunters were not required for work in the yard there. In July of last year those men were reduced to train receivers, their wages reduced from 30s. to 25s. a week, and their hours increased from eight to ten per day. No, they got notice that they might be reduced in July, but the actual reduction took place in January of this year.
  They thereupon complained to the general manager. He saw a deputation from these men, and now again I should like to tell the House that in all this reorganisation of the working of the line we do try as far as we can to carry it through without individual suffering; we do try, and I think we succeed, to improve the working of the line without individual men suffering. The general manager accordingly saw these men, and he gave them the wages of shunters — that is the higher wage. He could not find work for all at Leicester, but until work was found elsewhere, he paid them shunters' wages, he repaid them the arrears lost through the lower rate, and he paid them the overtime they had worked by working the ten hours per day instead of eight. Places are now being found for these men, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby spoke as though moving these men from Leicester was a special hardship to them. I ask him to understand that there is no work for these men at Leicester. The company are very careful and anxious that no man should suffer; so these men are being dealt with as I have just said, paid the higher wages for the less onerous work, and places are being found for them in different parts of the Midland system.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is a director of the company—I think it is desirable he should have
  1064
  the facts—that the Board of Trade, who will reply, was appealed to for eight months after this reduction took place before the general manager even would allow these men to come before him. I think that disposes of that point. When I also tell him that it is not Leicester alone, but other places on the system, he will, I think, appreciate that the facts are absolutely as I gave them.
  Mr. HILLS: My point is shortly this: that when the men came to the general manager he repaid them all they lost by being put into the lower grade. Surely no one could treat their employés more fairly than that? He met their case at once. I ask the House to consider the fact that we cannot guarantee that every man is to work all his life at the same place, in the same grade, or under the same conditions. We are so arranging that these men, as vacancies occur, are shifted off into other shunters' posts on the system.
  Take the case of the goods guards. I understand the complaint of the hon. Gentleman is this: that we have reduced a certain number of goods guards as being superfluous, whilst at the same time a large amount of overtime is worked. I think that is the charge he makes against us. I have three answers to make to that. The first is general: it does not pay the Midland Company to work overtime. We are trying, and have tried for years past, to reduce the overtime, and I think the figures that I shall give the House in a few minutes will show that we have succeeded. The second point is that actually as a matter of fact these men now are working much less overtime than they have worked in the past. I should say in passing that I quite agree that over a certain period last year, whilst the reorganisation was going on, a considerable amount of overtime was worked. There again I ask the House to consider that the companies exist for the purpose of carrying the public and the goods of the public, and that we cannot prevent the working of overtime sometimes. You cannot prevent working overtime sometimes. Of course, the House knows railway companies have to get the goods to their destination, and the men have to work overtime occasionally. Take the month of May this year. Two thousand goods guards were employed roughly speaking. They worked 51,000 terms, and the average of the terms of the month per man was twenty-four days. The number

  1065
  of working days in May was twenty-seven. Goods guards have a guaranteed week of six days of ten hours per day, and they are paid for that whether they work upon the line or not. That guaranteed work is regarded as very valuable by the goods guards. It means this, that all the goods guards for that month only worked on the average twenty-four days out of twenty-seven working days. Coming now to the overtime. On forty-two occasions only I think the men worked twelve hours, which works out at.08 per cent. of the whole, so that only in eight-hundredth per cent. were men whose normal day was ten hours working twelve hours. When you come to thirteen hours the percentage is.003 per cent., so only in three-thousandth per cent. were men working for thirteen hours, and no man was working for fourteen hours.
  I will now give the actual number of goods guards and brakesmen who worked overtime for each week in June. For the week ending the 25th of May there was one; for the week ending the 1st of June there were two; for the week ending the 8th of June there were twenty-two; and for the week ending the 15th of June, thirteen; for the week ending the 22nd June there were six, and for the week ending the 27th June there were seven, so that the House will see that except for Whit week on the whole of the Midland system there were never more than seven, and often only one or two men per week who worked more than the normal shift of forty hours. My last answer to the ease of the goods guards is this: The goods guards appealed to the sectional arbitration board. It considered their case, and I am informed that an agreement was very nearly reached. The matter has now gone to the Central Concilation Board, and it is therefore sub judice, and I appeal to the House to leave it there, because with all their faults the Arbitration Boards are set up to settle those differences, and I do not think we in this House ought to prejudice a case which is still being considered by these courts. So much for the goods guards.
  The last case brought forward was the case of the Wolverhampton draymen. What happened in March last was this. A goods agent at Wolverhampton put certain draymen on short time owing to the lack of work. Before that the men engaged temporarily had been dispensed with. Headquarters disapproved of his action and paid the wages, and therefore gave back the men their full time, even
  1066
  though they did not work full time. There were too many men there, so four draymen were found places elsewhere, and there again I call the attention of the House to this matter, which means that no readjustment of traffic is brought about at the expense of the men, because the men whom the goods agent had put upon half time were reinstated, all their arrears were paid up, and since there was not work for them all at Wolverhampton some were moved elsewhere. In face of these facts, can any hon. Member fairly say we intimidate our men. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] I most profoundly differ from that. We try to work a conciliation board in the way they should be worked. They are, of course, now in the experimental stage, and I do not think it increases the efficiency of these boards to have them attacked in this way in this House. We have loyally observed in every case the award of these boards, and I can give the House figures and facts to show that we are now engaged in carrying out this award in the way the board intended.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: When the hon. Gentleman states that, he cannot know that for two years the Midland refused to allow the boards to meet.
  Mr. HILLS: I have no information about that; but anyhow, there is a remedy to that sort of thing, and that is by appeal to the Board of Trade. I do appeal to the House to give this Bill a Second Reading. It is of extreme importance. It gives through connection with Bradford, and it involves expenditure of a very large sum of money on works. The Midland Railway have tried to work their line and to act towards their men not only justly but generously. I think we have convinced the Board of Trade of that, and the fact that no complaint reached the general manager proved, to my mind, that the men think so. Before I sit down I will give this pledge to the House, that if any complaint of the men reaches me I pledge myself that that complaint shall be investigated.
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): I am anxious not to stand between the House and its decision upon this matter more than a very few moments. But I think after the appeal made to me by the two hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway it would not be respectful to them if I did not say one or two words on behalf of the Board of Trade. I welcome the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby

  1067
  that he is a strong advocate of the policy and principle of conciliation, and I also welcome the similar statement of the hon. Member who has just spoken, and the assurance he gave to the House that the Midland Railway are more than anxious to carry out not only in the letter but in the spirit the awards of the Conciliation Board. I find, however, considerable difference in the point of view put before the House by the hon. Member for Derby and the hon. Member for Newcastle on the one hand and the point of view of the hon. Member for Durham on the other. I know that the Midland Railway Company stated to me, and I have every reason for believing the truth of that statement, that they have not only a rule but a tradition which they carefully follow that in any change in the management of the line they endeavour to carry out these changes with the least possible hardship to the individuals concerned.
  I find it difficult to reconcile that statement with the point of view of my two hon. Friends who raised this discussion. I do not want to go into details, but I think I ought to refer to one point raised by both my hon. Friends—the re-naming of these grades. Of course, if it was possible for a railway company to re-grade and re-name certain members of their staff they might thereby, as the hon. Member said, get outside all the obligations asked for in the awards of the Conciliation Board. That would be a disaster which it would be necessary to curtail, and which would compel us to step in and say that it was not according to the letter or the spirit of the principle of conciliation. The hon. Member for Derby told the House he believed that these men who were renamed train receivers as against shunters were engaged in precisely the same work. When I was investigating this question, the very first point I put before the general manager of the line was as to the precise nature and duties of train receivers. I can assure my hon. Friend that he intended, and I believe the company intended and still intend, that the train receiver should do a less important and a less dangerous work than that performed by shunters. The hon. Member for Newcastle told the House that the Board of Trade figures were never exaggerated. I think I may claim that as one more testimony to the accuracy of Board of Trade statistics. The October return, the last published, showed that in
  1068
  the month of October 168 men had worked over twelve hours in one day at least out of the month, twenty-six men had exceeded thirteen hours on one day, two men had exceeded fourteen hours. The total number of goods guards was 2,200, and the number of days worked 52,000. This railway company is an enormous concern, carrying the public over a great number of miles in this country, and they find it impossible to do without overtime. It does not pay the Midland Company to work overtime.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: Yes, it does.
  Mr. TENNANT: When time and a quarter rates are paid for overtime it must, I think, be to the interest of the company to curtail it as much as possible. I think very often it does good to ventilate the grievances of the men in order that an improvement in their condition may be arrived at. I understand that it is not the intention of my hon. Friend to divide, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. FIELD: As an Irish Member I take an interest in these railway questions. With regard to what was said by the hon. Member who took up the side of the railway companies, I disagree with him when he says that these discussions are useless. As an old Member of this House I remember the time when a discussion on a railway Bill was almost impossible, because the House was full of railway directors and shareholders, and the grievances of the men were positively unheard. I agree with the action taken by hon. Members opposite on this matter and also with the more same attitude of the Board of Trade. I think the small wage which is paid for casual labour is a point which ought to be considered by those who are defending this railway company.
  Mr. POINTER: In spite of the reply of the hon. Member who represents the Midland Railway Company and the satisfactory reply given by the official representing the Board of Trade, it appears to me that we ought to divide against this Bill. I understand that an arrangement has been arrived at whereby this Bill is to be allowed to go through. But I understand also that that decision was come to because it was understood that something like satisfaction was to be given in regard to the points raised. Instead of giving us that satisfaction almost upon every point there has been an attempt to wriggle out

  1069
  of a responsibility. When my hon. Friend was speaking about the changes from one place to another and the creation of a new class as train receivers the hon. Member opposite seemed to suggest that it all arose out of the fact that Leicester had been replaced to a certain extent by Syston. The hon. Member did not explain how it was that these train receivers should be put to work at Syston in a greater proportion than at Leicester. If he wants us to believe that the breaking up of the trains and making up different trains to different destinations and districts is not a very important work and not attended with considerable danger, then I wish to say that as far as we are concerned—and we know something about the danger attending this operation—we are not likely to accept this version of the position.
  With regard to overtime, the hon. Member appeared to suggest that this was one of the thing's which was not at all a usual occurrence. This seems to me like trying to get out of a responsibility by degrading a number of men by putting them off and balancing it by paying a heavier rate of overtime. It has been said that overtime is very unusual, but I am given to understand that it happens very often indeed. In Sheffield last week a similar thing occurred; There we found men complaining because they were asked on the Midland system to work excessive overtime, while the reason for that excessive overtime being necessary was that the staff had been reduced. So far as I have been able to gather in regard to this question of overtime it seems to have been a shuffling and a reshuffling in order that the Midland Railway Company may escape something discreditable to them. There is one point I should have liked the hon. Member to have touched upon. Whether he did not think of it or had any reason for avoiding it, or whether if he had touched upon it he would have been obliged to do so so gingerly as not to give satisfaction I do not know.
  The complaint I refer to is one that is coming forward almost every week in the year, and it is in regard to cases of victimisation arising out of the working of the Conciliation Board, and out of the general desire on the part of a certain class of men to uphold the dignity of their labour. I find that when they attempt to do this they are browbeaten by an official who speaks to them more like a blackguard and he invites them to retire, be-
  1070
  cause he says it would be very disagreeable to have to dismiss them, and if they would voluntarily retire he would be very pleased indeed. These men hold that so long as they are at their duty and perform it in a proper manner that trade union activity and other activities outside their work are things for their own private consciences, and they are not going to submit to any interference in regard to them on the part of the railway company or anybody else.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Have they been dismissed?
  Mr. POINTER: No, they have not been dismissed. I would draw the attention of the Noble Lord who has just interrupted me to the fact that several thousands have been dismissed during the past few years for that and other reasons. I would also point out to the Noble Lord that the work of a railway servant is rather different to that of ordinary employment. Here you have a company which comes to this House and asks for certain powers, and the nature of that employment is far more constant and regular than in many outside trades. I think my hon. Friends who represent railway interests, so far as the men are concerned, can tell you, and back it up with figures, that until quite recently it was unusual for men to be discharged from the railway service, but within the last few years, what with amalgamations, agreements, and the growth of the trade union spirit, dismissals have been far more frequent, and, so far as the Midland Railway Company is concerned, Mr. Paget, who I understand is the son of Sir Ernest Paget, has quite an unenviable notoriety for his treatment of men in this connection. I for one, upon that point alone, should feel inclined to urge this House to refuse to the Midland Railway Company larger powers than those which they already possess until they have the decency to discharge the obligations already resting upon them. I welcome the statement of the hon. Gentleman, so far as it goes, but I think everyone who has listened to the statements from the one side or the other will have come to the conclusion that his brief was a very poor one and that he did not exactly understand all the facts with which he was supposed to be dealing. If I might say a word with regard to the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Front Bench and represents the Government in this matter, I would say how profoundly disappointed we are every time he gets up to speak on this matter. Had he been ap-

  1071
  pointed to the Board of Trade to watch the interests of the railway companies he could not do other than he does. Every time he shuts his eyes to all abuses, and he will not have a suggestion made that railway companies can do any wrong. I hope, if again the hon. Gentleman presides over the destinies of his particular Department on an occasion like this, he will at least make some little effort to be fair in the attitude he takes up and will not refuse so resolutely to see any wrong in any railway company's action.
  Mr. C. DUNCAN: I should like to say a word or two on this particular Bill. The railway companies in this country have tremendous powers given to them, and those powers are exercised as a monopoly. It seems to me that complaints are being so continuously made with regard to the treatment by the railway companies of their employés that it is becoming really a matter of serious importance to this House. According to the statement of one hon. Member, one would imagine the Midland Railway Company were the best employers in the whole of the country. That is not my experience. I have had some little experience of the Midland Railway Company in Derby, and I know it refuses entirely to meet the representatives of the trade unions when any dispute occurs there. It may be they meet the representatives of the Railwaymen's Union, but they absolutely refuse to consider other unions, and it seems to me this matter is becoming of greater importance than in the past. Surely, if the Government itself concedes the right of trade unions sending their representatives to consider the difficulties which must necessarily arise in all large industrial concerns they ought to insist that those people who come to this House asking for privileges and extended privileges should place themselves upon terms of equality with the Government with regard to the treatment meted out to their employés. After all, that is the whole principle that has been contended for, not only in this Debate, but in practically all the Debates that have taken place in this House with regard to the treatment by railway companies of the men they employ.
  I know, as a matter of fact, the Midland Railway Company in Derby bring new conditions into operation without a moment's consultation with their men. They ride rough-shod over their workpeople, and not even a single moment's consideration is given to the wishes, the
  1072
  dislikes, or the opinions of their employés. This kind of thing is really becoming a scandal in this country, and I feel the directors of these railway companies ought to be told there is a place for them to occupy, and that is a place where they must show some common sense and reason in the running of these gigantic concerns. I am not for a moment minimising the difficulties directors of railway companies have necessarily to meet. I can understand and appreciate that they are big concerns, and have control over thousands of men, but there are other concerns with equally large numbers of men in their employ, such as the Post Office, and Armstrong, Whitworth, and Co., Limited, who are always prepared to meet the representatives of the trade unions concerned, and these concerns, as a matter of fact, have less disagreement and less trouble with their men, because they give them the opportunity of meeting them face to face and talking over difficulties. That is all that is asked for in this Debate, and, when we find the various railway companies riding rough shod over their men, the House will not be surprised if the Labour Members who have been returned to consider and carefully look after these men rise up and protest against this brutal treatment. They treat their workpeople almost as goods and chattels, and not as human beings. I think the time is rapidly becoming ripe when a much firmer stand will have to be taken, and I think I can prophesy the various railway companies a good deal more trouble in the future unless they show a little more common sense and reason in their dealings with the men whom they employ.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SUPPLY.— [Fifteenth Allotted Day.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (IN THE COMMITTEE.)
  [Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.

  SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—PERSONNEL.—(VOTE 8, SECTION 1).
  Postponed proceeding on Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £3,541,500, be-granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Personnel for Shipbuilding,

  1073
  Repairs, Maintenance, etc., including the cost of Establishments of Dockyards and Naval Yards at Home and Abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Question again put. Debate resumed.
  Major GUEST: When the Debate was interrupted, I was trying to impress upon the First Lord of the Admiralty the necessity of adjusting the differences which prevail among men who join the dockyards as apprentices and those who join without being apprenticed. A man who joins as an apprentice, when eventually he has worked out his time and comes forward for pension, finds himself seriously handicapped, inasmuch as his service for pension does not count until the expiry of his service as an apprentice. I know the Government have been approached with a view to putting this question right, and I hope they may see their way to reconsider their decision on the matter. I think their only contention is that there has been a rule in the service for the last sixty years whereby apprentice service never had been allowed to count towards pension, and I hope now they may see their way to do justice to these men and allow their apprenticed service to count.
  Next I desire to review, for one moment, the serious disadvantages under which hired men stand in His Majesty's dockyards on retirement. An established man, having finished his service, is entitled to a bonus and an additional allowance as well as a pension from the Government. The men themselves fully realise that it is not possible for all of them to come on to the establishment, but they think something more should be done than is done at present to help the men who have not the good fortune to get on to the establishment. It is especially hard on these men because, when they leave the service at sixty or sixty-one years of age, they are too old to get employment in any private firm, and they are unable to leave their service at an earlier period, because if they do so they lose the bonus to which they are entitled when they complete the full service, unless, indeed, it is a question of sickness or reduction of numbers. These men, who are on the hired list, are not able to have an insurance for the years between the time of leaving the dockyard and the period when they may get an old age pension. They may possibly receive, on leaving the dockyard, a bonus of £60, and that certainly is not enough to maintain them during
  1074
  the ten years which must elapse before they become entitled to an. old age pension. These men on the hired list would willingly contribute towards some pension which might be given them on retiring, and I hope the Government will seriously consider whether it is not possible to frame some insurance scheme on their behalf. I understand that there is no provision in the National Insurance Bill which will meet their case. I finally would like to say a word with regard to the petitions sent from the dockyards to the Admiralty. I would suggest that they be sent in at some fixed period and that the replies should be received from the Admiralty within say one month of the time the following petition should go in. I ask the Admiralty to investigate those questions, as I feel sure that by so doing they will increase the satisfaction of the men employed in the dockyards.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: I am glad to see on the Front Bench a right hon. Gentleman (Colonel Seely) who takes a very deep interest in the question I wish to raise. I think it has been a misfortune that since the beginning of the discussions on a Naval Estimate during the early part of this year, and particularly before the Imperial Conference met, nothing important has been said either on the Government or on this side of the House to draw a reply on the question of the cooperation of our Colonies in naval matters. But it is never too late to mend, and I think the Committee will do well to consider for a moment the very great changes which have taken place during the last three years in the attitude of our Dominions over the seas towards the Imperial Navy. This afternoon the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Lee) certainly did refer to the question of Dominion navies. I hope the hon. Member who is in charge of the Navy estimates at the present moment will be able to answer some of the questions I am about to put, and which I hope will not be considered indiscreet.
  It is not my desire to ask anything improper. Like my hon. Friend (Mr. Lee) I was for a long time strongly in favour of each Dominion or Colony contributing directly to the Imperial Navy, under the idea that one great Navy for all the Empire, having the co-operation of every part of the Empire and constitute the policy which would be in the interests not only of our over-seas Dominions, but of this country and of the Empire at large.

  1075
  But we are living in a democratic age. I am in sympathy with the proper exercise of democratic principles, and I understand what the Prime Minister of Canada said to me some years ago. I am committing no breach of confidence in repeating it. He said, when I urged upon him the advisability and the duty of contributing directly by a money grant to the Imperial Exchequer for naval purposes:—
  "I represent a democratic Government, I can go to that Government and ask them for money, which we shall spend ourselves and the administration of which we still control, to any extent, provided I can prove that the cause is a good one and is necessary for the honour and integrity of the country, but I cannot go to my Government, to my Parliament, and to the people, and ask them for contributions over which we have no control."
  But he added, and he said it in the most patriotic way, and I believe the most patriotic intention:—
  "Show us what we ought to do here in the Dominion in order to preserve the Empire and this portion of the Empire, within the lines of Admiralty policy, and you will find that we will respond adequately to the request, but not the demand."
  I say it is no breach of confidence to repeat these words, because there lay behind them a statement of the subsequent policy of the Dominion of Canada and of the Dominion of Australia, and of the Dominion of New Zealand, and I hope and trust there lay behind them also the policy of South Africa.
  10.0 P.M.
  I think that as long as the Dominions are willing to do as Australia is doing now —to take a unit provided by the Admiralty policy and pay for it, not disturbing the scheme of Imperial Defence, but sharing it—nothing but good can result; and as much will be done by these nominal units, these individual navies, if they come under the scheme of Admiralty policy as if the money was paid direct to the Imperial Exchequer for distribution upon the whole Navy. I have some questions to put, to which I hope to get an answer. I should like to know, in the first place, how far Admiral Henderson's scheme has made progress? That scheme was far-reaching and extraordinarily important. It provided for an expenditure over twenty-two years of a sum of money amounting to £23,000,000, which would give Australia a navy of eight armoured and ten protected cruisers, eighteen destroyers, and twelve submarines, the cost of the yearly maintenance of which would be £1,226,000, with 15,000 personnel. In this question I have long taken an interest, and seven years ago I made an estimate of what the Australian
  1076
  Dominion ought to pay if it contributed to the Imperial Exchequer in support of the Navy and if it paid according to its mercantile marine, and that estmate, which I made when I spoke before the Australian Chambers of Commerce, was £1,300,000. My estimate was the estimate of the man in the street, and was based upon the commerce of the Dominion of Australia and its mercantile marine, but this scheme, if we are to have Colonial or Dominion navies at all, it seems to me, is far-reaching in its consequences. You never would get from a Dominion, I believe, under the old system a contribution of £1,500,000 or £1,250,000. The collateral advantages of the new system are immense.
  A naval spirit cannot be bred in a people unless the people of the country see, as it were, that which belongs to them, what they have made, into which their men have gone and their money has gone, and where a daily object lesson is presented of a Navy which they can call their own, and a Navy, which I believe— it would be a painful thought if it were not to be so—would in time of war necessarily be under the supreme direction of our commander at the Admiralty here, and sharing not only in the responsibilities of the defence of the individual Dominion, but sharing in the responsibilities for the protection of the interests of the Empire, and this responsibility could only be properly shared—and I believe the Governments of the Dominions would realise that —when a great general policy is produced by the naval experts here and accepted in time of trouble by each individual Dominion. Canada's position in this matter is one which is different from that of Australia. Canada is a continental country and a country primarily agricultural. It has never realised until the last few years its danger. What do I mean by its danger? Not territorial, but the danger to its commerce. Canada is building up her commerce between Vancouver and Japan and she hopes to have as great a market for her wheat in Japan and China as in England and as in her own eastern provinces. If she does that, her trade routes must be protected, and those markets for which she desires to open the door can only be secured to her by a Navy. It is not strange that when the Government of this country, for both parties were responsible, gave the Colonies independent responsible government, asking no contribution and making no condition that they should share in the naval

  1077
  expenditure, and the responsibility for naval development, it is not strange that a Dominion like Canada should come slowly to realise the tremendous responsibilities which rest upon her with regard to her commerce, her trade, her exports and imports. It is a good thing to realise that she has now come to an understanding of that position, as Australia came to it sooner, being an island people, like the people of this country, with Japan not far away, with its large population ready to pour themselves into the Dominion of Australia, with Germany and New Guinea, and France and New Caledonia. Australia during the last quarter of a century has been surrounded by naval Powers which naturally were going to look after their own interests and where they could take advantage, I do not mean unfair advantage, and strengthen and increase their position would do so, as Germany would have done, of course, in the case of New Guinea, had it not been for the intervention of the Queensland Government.
  Australia came sooner to understand her responsibilities. She gave, and as I think, gave very freely in the circumstances, uneducated as her people were in regard to naval responsibilities. New Zealand did the same. New Zealand has not found it possible to undertake a Navy of her own, but she is doing a really fine thing. She is providing a "Dreadnought," as Australia is providing a "Dreadnought," and she is giving £100,000 on condition that a certain number of the cruisers' and destroyers which belong to the China unit shall show themselves in New Zealand waters and remain there for a certain period of each year. Australia has taken upon herself the responsibility of paying for the upkeep and the interest on the Sinking Fund of the cost of the unit, representing about £600,000 a year, to which I think this Government makes a contribution of £250,000. I think that is all to the good, and I believe that the basis of it is sound, and no one can read the report of that Conference in 1909 without being powerfully struck by the sense of responsibility which the representatives of the over-sea Dominions had in regard to the security of the Empire, and what was best in it all was this, that they were not thinking only of their coastal defence, but were grasping the greater thing, that is that their coastal defence with a few cruisers would be as nothing unless they had behind them the whole force of the British Navy. This afternoon a good deal was made from this side of the House of the
  1078
  lack of cruisers upon our trade routes, and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lee) said he thought the development of these Colonial Navies would be a great advantage in that their cruisers would act as patrols and would show the flag where the flag ought to be shown, because there is just as much advantage to be gained in the prestige which comes from showing the flag as in any other kind of demonstration, military or otherwise, which could be made. We are not quite clear whether Canada has decided to choose the first or the second of the schemes which were put before the conference.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The latter.
  Sir G. PARKER: That, I think, is as good in the circumstances as can be, because that will involve an expenditure of £600,000 for Canada. Six-hundred-thousand pounds from a country which a year ago spent nothing for the Imperial Navy is a thing of which we may not only be proud, but glad in the circumstances. And remember you will have their contribution from a country one-third of which is composed of French Canadians, who, loyal as they are to the flag and to the soil on which they were born, could not have been expected to share in our Imperial aspirations. Fortunately, as I have always held, at the time of the South African war, and when this question came up a French Canadian was Prime Minister of that country. They say Sir Wilfrid Laurier was pressed by public opinion to do it. I do not know any Government that is not pressed by public opinion to do its duty. I have never known any Government move unless it was impelled from behind. At any rate you have got that to the good. The ships that Canada will have are old ships, I presume of not a great deal of value, but of immense value in being an object lesson to people who never had a cruiser of their own before, and an immense object lesson in that, although now manned by our Reserves, they will. I hope, be manned ultimately by Canadians. I should like to ask if it is intended in Canada and Australia and New Zealand to recruit at once for these units?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is really going outside this Vote. Considerations referring to the Colonies are in order as far as they affect our shipbuilding programme, but when he refers to recruiting, that is quite outside.
  Sir G. PARKER: Should I be in order in asking, for instance, whether the Naval Board proposed by the scheme of Admiral Sir Reginald Henderson, which, as it seems to me must have the highest sanction of this Government and of the Admiralty, has been established, whether its chief director or senior member has been appointed, and whether, for instance, Commander Clarkson, who was to take charge of the construction of dockyard and naval bases, has done so—
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is asking a series of questions which are certainly not in order.
  Sir G. PARKER: I suppose I shall be in order in asking whether the general scheme proposed by Admiral Henderson and the general scheme which Canada, I presume, has accepted, is being developed. If I am not in order in that I do not quite understand how it was that on 13th July, 1909, the First Lord of the Admiralty was able to answer a question of the hon. Member for Clare upon this very question, or whether the scheme of the Australian Government was being developed and had been before the Admiralty, and if there was any likelihood of its being accepted.
  Mr. McKENNA: The hon. Gentleman is now asking a series of questions concerning the future. Surely as the future to which he refers is the future of Australia and Canada, it is a matter for the Australian and the Canadian Parliaments to say what they propose to do. I do not think it would be appropriate on the discussion of Vote 8 to announce what may or may not be the intention of the Australian and Canadian Governments.
  Sir G. PARKER: I see the force of that, and naturally I should be the last in the world to traverse these very proper lines of the conduct of Debate. It is quite true that these are questions which naturally should first be answered by Canadian or Australian Ministers in their own Parliaments, but I hope the Members of this Committee will realise that it was in no captious spirit I brought the matter up. I was supporting the Government very strongly on this matter. They have accepted the natural process of evolution for which we are responsible on this side of the House. I believe that this whole thing has come from the establishment of the Committee of Defence. That Committee set in action the principle of bringing the representatives of the over-seas
  1080
  Dominions into the councils of the Empire. To that extent a great principle has been embodied with respect to the relations between the Colonies and ourselves—the principle of co-operation. That principle is, it seems to me, far more important than contributions which may relieve our Exchequer, for it breeds an inspiring policy which, I believe, will be productive in the end of a real council of the Empire in regard to the Navy. If it does not do that, then the evidence we have seen in this particular development is very misleading. But I believe firmly that from the Committee of Defence has sprung this larger co-operation as to the Navy.
  I dare hope that in a few years we shall find not only Admiral Henderson's scheme accepted, but that a larger scheme will be carried. I hope that Canada, having started on this path, will come to a co-operation with the Naval Administration here which in days to come will ensure the Empire from all outside attacks, will give security for our trade and for the development of our commerce, will preserve our position by the strength we have as a naval Power in the counsels of the world, and will give us a certain access to all those markets where our goods go, and in which, without a strong Navy, we must be at a disadvantage in view of the increasing power of other navies whose object is not, I think, to attack our territory, but to give them, if possible, as strong a position as we hold by virtue of our naval strength among the Powers of the world. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make as wide a statement as possible upon this question. As the Colonies have made this move, as they have translated their feeling and their purpose into pounds, shillings, and pence, as they are starting naval schools and attempting to standardise their armies, as they are giving their naval officers an opportunity for training similar to our own, I hope this Government will be able to show during this Parliament to the people of the country what great things the Dominions are doing for the welfare of the Empire.
  Colonel YATE: The question raised by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir G. Parker) is one of the utmost importance. When we have the navies of the various Dominions adequately developed, with New Zealand, Australia, and possibly South Africa and Canada, all variously centred on a British Fleet based on naval stations at Singapore and Ceylon, we may

  1081
  then hope to see our Eastern Colonies amply protected and our trade and commerce in the East absolutely safe and independent either of the closing of the Suez Canal in time of war or, what may equally well happen, the British Government being unable to send aid, in the case of war taking place in Europe. We desire to see a Fleet strong enough to protect our trade in the East and put down all attempts to interfere with it, quite independently of any help from Europe. I trust that the day when we shall see this is not far off. I think we ought to take to heart the words spoken by the Noble Lord, the Member for Portsmouth, that we should differentiate entirely between the question of our battle fleets and the protection of our trade routes. As to our battle fleets, I was very much in sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Kensington (Mr. Burgoyne) and others who raised the question of secondary armaments in war. When we begin to realise that only on sixty-five days in the year on the average is it possible for a battle to be fought at long distance range in the North Sea, we can understand that it would be an advantage to us to have more guns suitable for close range work.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not so. There is no question that the number of days is vastly more than sixty-five.
  Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman toll me what is the average number of days? That was the number stated this afternoon. Of course, I am not an expert on the subject. I should be glad to hear if it can be stated what is the average number of days on which it could be hoped to fight a battle at 8,000 or 10,000 yards. It was stated this afternoon that the number was sixty-five. Whatever the number is, looking at it from the layman's point of view, almost all of us would sympathise with the idea that it would be better to have two ships costing a million each than one ship costing two millions. However, that is a question on which I am not able to give an opinion. I listened with pleasure to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he was providing us with a larger number of heavily armed cruisers with large fighting powers, able to tackle cruisers of the enemy. But that is a different question entirely from the question of protection of our food ships in war, and the protection of our trade routes, and I think our want
  1082
  at the present moment is a number of smaller ships capable of policing these routes and keeping them clear. We have heard to-day that the number of these ships has been reduced from sixty to twenty. The one assurance the British working man requires is that his food supply shall be secure in time of war, but I think when he learns that the number of cruisers protecting our trade routes has been reduced from sixty to twenty he will not sleep soundly in his bed. Our food supply must be protected by cruisers, and there is danger in this reduction of the police ships upon our trade routes. I hope that the present state of things in this matter of the protection of our trade routes will be altered in a very short time. One other question has reference to the class of ships serving in the East. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take into consideration the sufferings inflicted on men in our ships serving in the terrible heat of the Persian Gulf and round the coast of India. We know what have been the sufferings of men employed lately in putting down gun-running and in other services in the Persian Gulf. These modern iron vessels are built for the Atlantic and Northern latitudes, and they are utterly unsuited for service in the Persian Gulf and on the coast of India where the heat is so intense.
  The CHAIRMAN: That is rather a question for the Admiralty Vote.
  Colonel YATE: I was talking about the construction of ships.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman was talking about old ships, and not about the construction of new ships.
  Colonel YATE: I am asking for the construction of new ships, and I was referring to the sufferings of men on board these iron ships with a view to ascertaining whether the Government could not provide proper vessels suitable for this police work; or the Royal Indian Marine would be perfectly able to take over these police duties. The iron vessels now employed are death-traps for the men, who undergo intense suffering. I do hope the question will be taken into consideration.
  Mr. WHELER: We have had very little said about the question of dock accommodation, and I was wondering whether any one on the Government Bench was going to say anything about our floating docks. I want to know something as to the state in which those floating docks are, and as

  1083
  to removing the floating dock from the Medway to the north of Scotland. According to an answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty some time ago, he inferred that there was a possibility of two floating docks being removed to the north, and I wish to ask whether there is any likelihood of any other docks taking their place, and what is the position of the other docks on the Estimates for the present year. I understand that we have now launched the twenty-first ship of the "Dreadnought" kind. It does seem to me a very important question for discussion what is to be the dock accommodation for these large ships. There has been very little said about it. There are docks which can accommodate "Dreadnoughts" only at certain times of the tide, and I am sure that we require more dock accommodation than we have at the present time for our big warships. It should be borne in mind that we are having ships of bigger tonnage every year, and we should know something of the actual plans of the Admiralty for their accommodation. The Secretary to the Admiralty, in his speech to-day, referred to the limitations of the age of workmen in the dockyards for establishment. The point has arisen in the division which I have the honour to represent. I am certain that decision will be welcomed, very much welcomed. It would not have arisen so much had it not been for the fact of the suspension of the establishment system; and that men who would have been taken on if it had been in operation suffered a considerable amount of disappointment from the fact that they were slightly over the age at which they would have been placed on the establishment. I heartily congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on increasing the limit to fifty years, and I am certain that decision will be welcomed in the dockyard in the division I have the honour to represent. While this subject is under consideration I would ask that there should also be considered the amounts stopped under the establishment system. In the lower ratings, in the case of men with wages not exceeding 20s. per week a sum of 1s. per week is stopped, and 1s. 6d. for those with wages not exceeding 36s. per week. Between those amounts of pay per week and the amounts stopped there are peculiar differences. There are undoubtedly cases under the present system tinder which men have so much stopped from their weekly wage, and yet when it
  1084
  comes to the time to receive the pension they are not getting benefit in proportion. I would ask the First Lord to give consideration to the question so that the amounts stopped may correspond more exactly to the benefit the men gain. By doing so he will be meeting a grievance which does exist among many classes of dockyard hands. I am certain that in doing something on those points the Admiralty will be conferring a benefit which will very much interest dockyard men.
  Major GUEST: In view of the fact that the day of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales will be a bank holiday in Wales, I would ask the First Lord of the Admiralty to consider whether he cannot grant that concession to the men employed at Pembroke Dockyard?
  Mr. HOHLER: To the Members for dockyard constituencies this Vote is exceedingly important. I desire to appeal to the First Lord of the Admiralty and the Financial Secretary to consider the real position of the dockyards. Take the case of Chatham. In Chatham we are solely dependent for the employment of the men resident there on the dockyard. The whole river frontage is occupied for that purpose, and except at the dockyards the men of Chatham and Gillingham have substantially no employment at all. I would ask above all things that, in making provision for your naval programme, you should see that at any rate your dockyards are amply supplied with work in order that we may not have discharges of the men. I do not say that has been the case in the past winter, and I think we have reason to be grateful for the policy of the Admiralty in regard to employment, but there have been discharges this spring which at one time threatened to be serious. The displacement of labour is great, and it is exceedingly difficult to find employment in the district. I therefore do ask the First Lord and the Financial Secretary to carefully consider the matter, and in their programme to make first provision for their own dockyard hands. Outside you have your great contractors with whom you place contracts for your vessels, but it is to be borne in mind with reference to them, that they are able to compete, not only in this country, but with foreign nations for the construction of vessels. I appeal, therefore, for first consideration and an adequate supply of work for the dockyard towns and particularly for the town which I have the honour to represent. The First Lord of the Treasury said "Hear,

  1085
  hear." I give the first consideration to Chatham because it is a place the importance of which I am not sure he realises. I want the First Lord to bear in mind with regard to dockyard accommodation that there is no question but that up the Medway you can bring your "Dreadnoughts." The sole difficulty is that there is no dry dock in which you can repair them. Having regard to the increasing size of our vessels and the importance of this yard, upon which the whole growth and livelihood of the town depends, I ask the First Lord to consider the question of further facilities for docking accommodation at Chatham. The only other point I wish to bring forward is in regard to the chargemen's claims. I regret that the Admiralty have kept back the answers to the petitions until this Debate is over.
  Mr. McKENNA: That is not true.
  Mr. HOHLER: The fact remains that we have not got them, whereas last year we had them at a much earlier date. It may be that the Treasury have kept them back. In any case the Vote is now being discussed, and it would have been exceedingly convenient to have known what is being done. I dislike the system of petitions altogether. It is antiquated and wholly unsatisfactory. Only once in a year there is an opportunity of laying the men's grievances before the Admiralty. If you bring them forward at any other time you are told that you must wait for the answers to the petitions, although the reply in regard to the bulk of them is that they cannot be acceded to. The result is that you can never put the men's just grievances in a proper form before this House. I ask that the system should be entirely abolished. I would infinitely prefer that the matter should go before the Advisory Board. I believe that if the case went before the Advisory Board it would be redressed at once. I have made careful inquiry of the various heads of departments in regard to the matter, and I am told that all are equally entitled to the 1s. 6d. charge-money. This matter was brought before the attention of the First Lord in 1908. On the 17th of June in that year the following question was put to the right hon. Gentleman:—
  "Whether it is his intention to withhold the concessions granted to a limited number of chargemen of shipwrights from the remaining chargemen and from the chargemen of other trades; and, if so whether he will state in what respects their various duties have ceased to be of equal responsibility."
  1086
  This was the reply to the First Lord:—
  "The duties of chargemen are not now and never have been invariably of equal responsibility; but the matter has again been made the subject of a petition by the chargemen, and will be further considered in due course."
  I was reading the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty in 1908. The Government happen to be employers in this case, and I do think that the men's case deserves consideration at their hands. As long ago as 1908 they said that the matter would be further considered in due course. We have passed 1909 and 1910. Nothing has been done. We have got to 1911. I do not say whose is the fault. But owing to the fault of somebody these petitions have been unduly delayed; therefore we cannot raise the point. I ask, therefore, in the event of the Admiralty having refused the request of the chargemen that they will undertake to bring the matter before the Advisory Committee, in order that it may be dealt with, and be at rest.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Gravesend raised the very important question of the participation of the Overseas Dominions in the naval defence of the Empire. May I say, as one Colonial born, that I take great pride in the instant recognition by the Overseas Dominions of their stake in the integrity of this Empire. My hon. Friend is familiar with the agreements which we have entered into in 1909 with the representatives of the Overseas Dominions. I concur entirely with the First Lord of the Admiralty that it would be improper for us here and now to forecast the future or to anticipate the action of the Dominion Governments in this matter. I was privileged to be present at some of those meetings, if not all, and I was greatly impressed, if I may say so, with the proceedings. I have confidence that quietly and unostentatiously the representatives of the Home Government and the representatives of the Overseas Dominions made plans there and then which in their full fruition will have a far-reaching effect as regards the consolidation of the safety of this Empire. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Devonport raised the question of establishment. He says: "You are only now, subject to the Treasury, establishing 6,500." That gives us the number of established men which we consider desirable in the national interests and in the interests of the proper administration of our work. I cannot hold out any prospect

  1087
  that that number will be at once further increased. The increase of the age to fifty has been suggested by the hon. Member for Devonport as likely to prevent men otherwise eligible from being established at an earlier age. I am quite sure that the local officials are not likely to draw a line of the sort suggested: men will be established upon their merits. Men have now got five more years to go during which they will be eligible for, and have the opportunity for, establishment. As the hon. Member says, I believe this will be treated by the men as a valuable concession. The hon. Member for Devonport and others said the wages paid by the Board are very much lower than the wages in similar trades in the locality. That is not correct. I do not think he can give me a case where the wages paid by the Board are very much lower. In any case, I deny that statement. It must be remembered the dockyards have a forty-eight hour week; the establishment men have ultimately a pension under a scheme which is not self-supporting. The hon. Member said the men make their contribution of a shilling or eighteen pence, but the scheme is not self-supporting. The hired men, to say nothing of the establishment men, have a much greater continuity of employment than men. outside, particularly in the shipbuilding trade, and after fifteen years' service those hired men are entitled to a gratuity of a week's pay for each year of service, and after seven years if they are "stood off" on reduction they are entitled to a week's wages for each year of service, and I may say although it does not come under this service, that in 1910–11 we paid £10,450 in gratuities to what I refer. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth said there were few men of the skilled labouring class who got the maximum wage of 30s. It is a special rate, and it is only possible for men who are really engaged at machine work of a responsible character, but under the conditions which are about to be issued, the hon. Member for Chatham will be glad to know a certain further number of men will be included. The number will be comparatively small—I do not want to put the matter too high—but the number of skilled labourers authorised to be borne on the special rate of 30s. and 29s. for hired men, and 28s. 6d. and 27s 6d. for established men, are to be increased in accordance with the instructions to superintendents, and these rates are to be available for men employed as manual
  1088
  workers on the more important operations requiring skill, or who actually use hand or machine tools as responsible workmen. Up to last year this special rate was conferred to men engaged upon machine work of a responsible character, now we have made this extension, it is not very much and I am not disposed to say a very large number of men will come under it, but it is to be available for manual workers engaged upon the more important work requiring skill or special qualifications; that is an addition to the men engaged upon machine work. The result will be that a number of men will be eligible for the new rate of 30s. per week. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke expressed the hope that replies might be sent earlier. The matter does not entirely depend on us—another Department is concerned. My hon. Friend made a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration, and that is that replies should be received one month before the petition for next year is undertaken. Subject to any evidence I may hear to the contrary, I think that is reasonable because it gives the men time to formulate their views. I will bear the matter in mind. With regard to another point raised by the hon. Member for Chatham, what is the position? The members of the Board sit upon one side of the table and the employés upon the other so that there is direct communication, and I think that is a most admirable arrangement. I have been greatly interested to sit there and listen to the petition which these men bring forward and adjudicate between them and the interest of the public purse. I am quite sure those representing the Admiralty are glad to see the employés to hear what complaints they have to allege. The hon. Baronet said that when these decisions are promulgated it will be found that the greater number of these claims will be marked "not acceded to." May I point out that since 1906 the wages concessions to the employés of the dockyards amount to between £60,000 and £70,000 a year. The hon. Member for Chatham has reminded us that Chatham has nothing else much to depend upon but the dockyard, and he says a number of men have been dismissed.
  Mr. HOHLER: There have been 300 or 400 discharges.
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have a paper here showing that on 4th May, 1907, the number employed at Chatham was 6,868,

  1089
  whereas on 24th June, 1911, the total was 8,953. I think, if I may say so, that that is doing Chatham very well. The hon. Member for Pembroke asked us to give a holiday to the men employed at the Pembroke Dockyard on the occasion of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales. Of course, I cannot give an answer to that now, because precedents will have to be gone into, but the Board of Admiralty will communicate with my hon. Friend in due course.
  The hon. Member for Sheerness asked me a question about the floating dock. I may say that it will be in the Medway before the close of the year. It is not there yet, and any question as to whether it may or may not be taken somewhere else I cannot answer. We have not contemplated anything else except placing it in the Medway. I think I have now answered all the questions, and I appeal to the Committee to allow this Vote to go through.
  Mr. LEE: I wish to put one question to the First Lord of the Admiralty. What has become of the naval airship? We have heard a great deal about it from time to time. It was taken out of its shed after a period of incubation extending over a period of nine or twelve months, but only for a few hours, and then it was returned to its shed. Since its return it has not been seen or heard of. It cannot be on account of the weather, because a number of aviators have crossed over from the Continent during the last few days. It would be of interest if the right hon. Gentleman would tell us what has become of this new engine of war which so far has not exhibited any very highly offensive qualities. Will the First Lord of the Admiralty tell us something about it?
  Mr. McKENNA: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to read him the reply: "The airship is now completed, and trials of the vessel in and outside of the shed have been carried out. It has been found desirable to stiffen some of the transverse stays, and this work is nearly complete. The gas-bags will be again inflated and the outer covers replaced, and trials in the air will be carried out as soon as favourable opportunities occur."
  Mr. LEE: This year?
  Mr. McKENNA: Immediately, possibly next week.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—MATERIEL.—(VOTE 8. SEC. 2.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £4,955,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expense of the matériel for shipbuilding, repairs, maintenance, etc., including the cost of establishments of dockyards and naval yards at home and abroad, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SHIPBUILDING, REPAIRS, MAINTENANCE, ETC.—CONTRACT WORK. (VOTE 8. SEC. 3.)
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £14,365,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Contract Work for Shipbuilding, Repairs, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912."
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

SUPPLY [6th April].— REPORT.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1911–12.
  Resolution reported, "That a sum, not exceeding £406,400, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of the Admiralty Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st day of March, 1912."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  Question put, and agreed to.

  ARREST OF MISS MALECKA IN RUSSIA.
  Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Gulland.]
  11.0 P.M.
  Mr. MORRELL: I desire on this Motion for the adjournment to call the attention of the House and of the Foreign Office to the case of Miss Malecka, a British subject who is now shut up in a prison at Warsaw. It is a case which has attracted great attention in this country, and I must say I am sorry the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) did not think

  1091
  it necessary to come down to the House in order to give us his views. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Undersecretary (Mr. McKinnon Wood) is here. The first point is as to the nationality of this lady. I assume it is now admitted by the Foreign Office that under the British law there is no question whatever as to this lady being a British subject; just as much a British subject as any Member in this House tonight. Her father was a Pole naturalised in England; her mother was an English woman. She was born at Folkestone in the year 1864, and she has lived practically all her life in England. Two years ago, after the death of her father, whom she had supported, she went abroad to Warsaw to earn her living as a teacher of music. There can be no doubt that as regards English law she is entitled to the protection which the Foreign Office can give to a British subject abroad, although I am quite aware that the Russian Government deny that she is still a British subject after she has got to Russia. That is a point I will deal with presently.
  I want to say that the duty of the Foreign Office is clear in this matter. I am not claiming that any British subject is entitled to go into a foreign country and break the law with impunity. But I think we are entitled to say that a British subject ought not to be kept in prison in a foreign country without some definite charge being made against her. In the second place, if she is retained in prison until trial she should be treated in the best possible way according to the rules of the country, and full access should be given to the British Consul, the British representative, and accredited persons in order to advise her as to the course to be taken. If no definite charge can be made against Miss Malecka, the Foreign Office should use their utmost influence to secure her immediate release. That is the least we can ask for, and unless the Foreign Office is prepared to do that then British nationality abroad is a mockery; and we have no right to naturalise a foreigner as we did in the case of this lady's father. I want to ask as regards the three points I have raised, first, has a definite charge been made against this lady? We have been told vaguely that she is conspiring against the Russian Government. We have also been told, in answer to a question, that she expressed herself
  1092
  strongly on political matters. That is what many of us do at times. Further we have been told that she is said to be a Socialist, and a member of the Polish Socialist party. Do the Foreign Office remember that this lady has been in prison for three months, and have they yet ascertained any particulars of the charge made against her? My next point is to ask how far her friends have been allowed to communicate with her and visit her, and how far British representatives have access to her? I understand that for a long time the Russian Government absolutely refused to allow the British Consul to visit her in the prison, but I am told now that in response to representations made by the British Ambassador in St. Petersburg that refusal has been withdrawn and the British Consul has seen her. I am also told on the authority of this lady and her friends in England that even now the British Consul may only communicate with her in German, although she is an Englishwoman and he is an Englishman. They meet together in the prison, but they have still to communicate in German in order that the Russian authorities may understand what they are saying to each other. When she writes to her friends in England she has to write her letters in German in order that they may be understood by the Russian authorities. That is my information, and I shall be glad to know whether my right hon. Friend (the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs) can substantiate it.
  Further, I should like to know, assuming that the Foreign Office have not yet obtained any particulars of the charge brought against her, what efforts have they made directly to obtain her release? I understand that they have made representations asking that her trial should be expedited. With all due deference to the Foreign Office, my own view is that the time has come to make a rather different demand from that. It is all very well to ask for a trial, but unless definite charges can be brought against a British subject I think the natural things is to ask for release. As an hon. Friend near me reminds me two others who were not British subjects, and were arrested at the same time as she was have since been released by Royal order, and therefore I should like to know whether the Foreign Office have made any demand or representations to the Russian Government for the release of this lady, of course, on condition that she should not return to

  1093
  Russia. In replying to a question on the 26th April the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs said:—
  "According to the Consul's information she will be conducted across the frontier after the matter has been investigated, and forbidden to re-enter the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1911, vol. xxiv., col. 1774.]
  Therefore at that time that seemed to be the line the Foreign Office thought fit to pursue. What I want to know is whether they have done anything else or made any further representations to obtain the release of this lady, or whether they are simply asking that the matter may be brought before the courts. Here is a case it seems to me where we may fairly press now immediately for the release of a British subject.
  I want to take up a moment or two in an examination of the claim that is made by the Russian authorities, that this lady is not a British subject, and that she has become a Russian by reason of the fact that she is now in Russia. I venture to say that that is a very doubtful claim, and I shall be glad to know whether the Foreign Office have yet asked for full evidence to be furnished to them upon that claim, as regards the proofs which the Russian Government bring forward for it. I suggest it is doubtful on this ground. It is quite true that if the marriage is by Russian law a valid marriage then the lady takes the nationality of her father, who under Russian law was still a Russian subject, because the father became naturalised without the permission of the Russian Government. As I understand it she may be still considered by Russian law to be a Russian subject, but that is assuming that the marriage was valid according to Russian law. The marriage was solemnised on 10th April, 1860, at St. Jude's Church, between a Russian Roman Catholic and an English Protestant. By Russian law such a marriage is not valid unless the permission of the Catholic Church or the police has been obtained.
  I wish to know whether the Russian Government has satisfied the Foreign Office that such permission was obtained and the marriage is valid. If not, then the lady is not legitimate according to Russian law, and takes the nationality of her mother, and is still by Russian law a British subject. In any case, apart from these technicalities, surely the time has come when we might press the Russian Government to release the lady who can-
  1094
  not be a great danger to the safety of the Russian State. The relations between Russia and this country are fortunately friendly. A little while ago we entertained the Tsar at the public expense in this country. A successful effort has been made to obtain an alliance between Russia, and this country. For the sake of the relations between the two countries, is it worth the while of the Russian Government to insist on retaining this lady in prison against the feeling of the mass of the people of this country? Already she has suffered a great deal. Already we are told by her relations that her life is in danger. She herself writes that in consequence of the anxiety, the hardships she has undergone, it is very doubtful whether her health will hold out much longer. I believe if the Foreign Office really make representations to the Russian Government asking for her release, even now the Russian Government will take the course of humanity and commonsense by releasing this lady on condition that she does not again enter Russia.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I understand this English lady, who is very well known to a large number of people, particularly in the artistic world in London, has been in prison now for more than three months, and English opinion is rather widely aroused on the subject, and has just begun to wake up to the fact that something of a scandal is happening. It is true that opinion is aroused, but there can be no question that if Lord Palmerston were at the Foreign Office the lady would have been liberated some weeks ago. Three points have been raised by way of question and answer. There has been the question of the lady's nationality, the question of permission for the Consul to visit her, and there has been reference to the nature of her offence, and we have been told that the Consul reports that she rather rashly announced herself to be a Socialist. No doubt it was rash, but to be a Socialist and to avow that she is a Socialist is not a crime readily apprehended in this country. I think these questions are really superseded by another. The best course for the Foreign Office is to ask for the release on condition of deportation forthwith. The question is whether this is a reasonable demand by the Russian Government? I speak as a friend of the Anglo-Russian entente, and I think it is from the point of view of the interest of the entente that a very strong case can be made. We certainly ought to consider the

  1095
  point of view of the Russian Government, but at the same time if the entente is to be a real thing, the Russian Government is also bound to consider the point of view of the English. I wish very much that the entente should foe a real thing. From the Russian point of view there is the question of the lady's offence. We are hardly agreed with the Russian view of what a political offence is. We do not approve of a delay of three months, or it may be, as happens in many cases, three years before a prisoner is brought to trial, or knows even the charge. Thirdly, it is very well established that Russian prisons are very often in such places as in the view of Englishmen a lady ought not to be kept for a great length of time. Fourthly, there is the factor in the Russian situation which we must recognise as excusing delay, namely, the loose relations between the Russian Home Office and the local authorities. But on that point we are also naturally impatient, and I think it is only friendly and fair in the interest of the entente that the Russian Government should understand the depth and intensity of the feeling on these matters.
  Our object in raising this question is to inform the Foreign Secretary of the strong feeling which has been aroused in the country. Those of us who have touched on this question in the House are getting a great quantity of correspondence from people in various parts of the country who are interested in the matter. I think we ought to say that if anything untoward were to happen, or if any great delay were to occur, the entente would be in some danger of falling into unpopularity. The entente has some enemies now, but I am not one of them. I think it is very possible that if any shocking of English opinion occurred the interests of the entente would be seriously damaged. We ought to warn the Russian Government that there might be a great outburst of feeling here—a considerable clamour for the reversal of the sentence. It is a fact that in more than one case convictions in Russian courts have been reversed at the instigation apparently of adverse opinion in this country. That is not a dignified position for the Russian Government to be placed in, but it might be placed in such a position in connection with this question. I think the only true position for a friendly Government to take up is that the Foreign Office should warn the Russian Government to that effect. Longer delay in requesting the release and
  1096
  deportation of the lady might lead to a great deal of trouble for both parties. I think from the point of view of the Russian constitutional democrats—a party with great influence in the Duma—it is very desirable indeed that the case should be settled as soon as possible, and that English opinion should not be aroused in a hostile sense. On these grounds I desire to support my hon. Friend in asking that the Foreign Office might busy itself to obtain the release and deportation of the English lady who is imprisoned at Warsaw, and in doing so I do so with the desire not of complaining or making an unreasonable demand, but in order to strengthen the hands of the Foreign Office in urging upon the Russian Government what is really true to the interests of the Anglo-Russian entente.
  Sir WILLIAM BYLES: I should like to associate myself with what my hon. Friends have said. I asked a question on this subject yesterday, and in answer I was informed that this lady was travelling under a British passport. A British passport is a very solemn document, and involves a duty upon the Government of this country, and I think that the Foreign Office should treat this matter seriously and vigorously. It is not a thing to be regretted that the British House of Commons should stand up in defence of British subjects, and this lady travelling under a British passport is entitled to all the protection which she can get from the Government.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: I want to ask one question. If this lady is a British subject, what is the use of the Foreign Office?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): I do not understand the point of the hon. Gentleman's question. I think it is a question without a point. Does the hon. Member suggest that a British subject can go into a foreign country, and, as you must assume for the moment, though I do not want to assume it as a fact, break the laws of that country in the eyes of the authorities of that country, and that the Foreign Office must demand her release? Because if he does not mean that there is no point in his observation. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has she been tried?"] The position is this, that this lady travelling under a British passport, as the hon. Member says, is according to the contention of the British Government a British

  1097
  subject, because her father was a naturalised Englishman, and she was born in this country. But the House is well aware that our views on naturalisation are not the views of all foreign countries. For instance, our views on naturalisation do not obtain in France or Russia. The question is whether she is in the eyes of the Russian Government properly considered as a Russian subject. It is not a very simple question, and I should like to tell the House—I think it is the only bit of new information I have got to give—that our Embassy has taken up this matter with great energy, and is obtaining the opinion of Russian lawyers on the question as to whether the Russian authorities are right in regarding her as a Russian subject. We have not got the opinion yet. When that opinion comes it will be our business to consider what is the right thing to be done. Even then it is not at all a clear matter. I think every Member of this House will realise if he considers the matter closely that it is not a clear thing that we have the right to demand the release of a British subject accused of what the Russian authorities regard as a serious offence simply because she is a British subject.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: What about the trial?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Will the hon. Member say that the time which has elapsed is very much greater than the time that has elapsed sometimes even in this country? The Russian Government have not met us in an unfriendly spirit. While maintaining that she is a Russian subject they have allowed as a matter of goodwill to this country our Consul at Warsaw, who has dealt also with great energy with this case, to visit Miss Malecka. Her friends are allowed to assist her, and to supply her with necessities. There is no ground for saying that the Russian Government has not treated us in a friendly way, or treated this matter in a harsh way. The only point made by my hon. Friend was that we ought to demand her release.
  Mr. MORRELL: No charge is brought against her.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: A charge is brought against her. The Russian Government bring a very serious charge. It is not my business to say whether the charge is justified or not. The charge is one of conspiring against the State.
  Mr. MacVEAGH: Has she been told?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: Of course she has been told. She is allowed to correspond with her friends, and to converse with our Consul. I am not acquainted with, and it is no part of my duty to be acquainted with prison practice in that country, but I understand that if a visitor is allowed to see a prisoner a gaoler is present. The prison authorities are supposed to know what goes on. I do not know that that is a very great hardship, or anything on which to make a very serious charge against the Russian Government.
  Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD: The charge is against you, and not against the Russian authorities.
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: There is no charge against us—no charge that any reasonable man could bring against us. Here is a lady rightly or wrongly charged with a very grave offence. If she were a British subject we could not demand her release. What should we say to the Russian Government if it demanded the release of a Russian prisoner charged with a serious offence in this country. My hon. Friend is unreasonable in his accusation against the foreigner.
  Mr. MORRELL: Why do they not bring her to trial?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: It was only yesterday I replied that our representations that this lady should be brought to trial had been answered by the Russian acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, who promised to do his best to see that this should be done. What more can we reasonably ask for? Really to hear hon. Members talk you would imagine that whenever anyone who claims to be a British subject, whether the claim is allowed by the foreign Government or not, we ought to demand from the Russian Government, or the Government concerned, that the prisoner should be released and deported. [An HON. MEMBER: "NO."] I beg pardon, the hon. Member who moved the Motion, and the hon. Member who seconded it, both asked that in view of the entente we ought to demand from the Russian Government the release of this lady on the condition that she should be deported. We have asked that the trial shall come on within a reasonable time. What more can the British Government do? We have raised the question as to whether she is a British

  1099
  subject. We have taken every step possible to get the question settled by-taking legal opinion, and we have acted on the advice of the British Embassy, and of those acquainted with the Russian law. That opinion is on its way, and I cannot say anything about it. We also proposed that the lady should be brought to trial within a reasonable time.
  And, it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.

  Northern India Salt Department.
  Northern India Salt Department.
  Motor Spirit Consumption.
  Motor Spirit Consumption.
  Blind and Deaf Schools (Grants).
  Blind and Deaf Schools (Grants).
  Land Purchase Loans (Ireland).
  Land Purchase Loans (Ireland).
  Super-tax Assessments.
  Super-tax Assessments.
  Papal Registers (Vatican Archives).
  Papal Registers (Vatican Archives).
  Plumage (Overseas Trade).
  Plumage (Overseas Trade).
  Big Game Shooting (East Africa Protectorate).
  Big Game Shooting (East Africa Protectorate).
  Referenda (Commonwealth of Australia).
  Referenda (Commonwealth of Australia).
  Uniformity of Empire Laws.
  Uniformity of Empire Laws.
  Indian Budget.
  Indian Budget.
  Bavarian Jubilee Stamps.
  Bavarian Jubilee Stamps.
  West Clare Mail Service.
  West Clare Mail Service.
  Reinstatement Application (Kildare).
  Reinstatement Application (Kildare).
  Contractor's Claim (County Longford).
  Contractor's Claim (County Longford).
  Evicted Tenant (Drumderry).
  Evicted Tenant (Drumderry).
  Registration of Labourers' Plots (Ireland).
  Registration of Labourers' Plots (Ireland).

Preamble
The Lord CAMOYS The Lord CAMOYS—Took the Oath.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House. That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Order applicable to the following Bill has been complied with:
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 3).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(Pateley Bridge Order).
Reported from the Select Committee, without amendment.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
(UNOPPOSED ORDERS).
Reported, with Amendments.

ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
Re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow/
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
PIER AND HARBOUR ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
TRAMWAYS ORDERS CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL. [H.L.]
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow/
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
DERWENT FISHERIES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Reported, without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
MILFORD DOCKS BILL.
LIVERPOOL OVERHEAD RAILWAY BILL.
WESTBURY ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BRISTOL TRAMWAYS BILL.
Read 2a, and committed.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Read 2a.
BELFAST CORPORATION BILL.
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
HALIFAX CORPORATION BILL.
React 2a, and committed.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
Read 2a: Committee negatived.
NORTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL.
Read 3a, with the Amendments: A further Amendment made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
PAIGNTON URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
  SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRAMWAYS BILL.
  Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 11) BILL.
Report from the Select Committee, That the Committee had not proceeded with the consideration of the Bill, no parties having appeared in opposition thereto; read, and ordered to lie on the Table: The Orders made on the 11th and 28th of June last discharged, and Bill committed.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1889.
University Court Ordinance (No. 37).
(General No. 2.)—Ordinance of the University Courts of the Universities of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh;
(General No. 2.)—Regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Law (B.L.), and amendment of Ordinance (No. 39), General (No. 11) of Universities Commissioners, regulations for the Degree of Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.):
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and to be printed. (No. 125.)

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS BILL. [H.L.]
Commons Amendment to be printed. (No. 124.)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GAS) BILL.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) (No. 2) BILL.
Read 2a(according to order), and committed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order).
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.
Read 2a (according to order), and committed.
NATIONAL GALLERY AND ST. JAMES'S PARK BILL. [H.L.]
King's consent signified by the Earl Beauchamp: Bill read 3a (according to order): An Amendment (privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PARLIAMENT BILL.
House again in Committee (according to order).
[The EARL of DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Consideration of Clause 2 resumed.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE rose to move the following Amendment—
Page 2, line 33, after ("sessions") insert ("Provided further that any Bill—

(a) which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

(c) which has been referred to the Joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained

shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this section unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.
(2) Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of paragraphs (a) (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be decided by the Joint Committee.")
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, the object of the Amendment which I have on the Paper is to provide that in certain cases to which I shall presently refer the procedure contemplated by Clause 2 of this Bill shall not apply, or at any rate shall not apply to the full extent. I can well understand that there should be a considerable difference of opinion as to the measures which might properly be exempted from the full operation of this Bill. I can understand that. there should be a difference as to the measures themselves and as to the manner in which they might be so exempted, but what I am quite unable to understand is that any one should have the courage to say that no measures whatever, no matter of what importance, are to be treated otherwise than in the ruthless manner provided for by the second clause of this Bill.
It is necessary while we arc discussing these points that we should bear in mind what Clause 2 treatment really involves. It is not necessary that I should elaborate this fully, because we are most of us familiar with the Bill. It is enough to say that under Clause 2 a majority of the House of Commons has only to insist for two years upon any measure for that measure to become law, not only over the heads of your Lordships' House, but over

101
the heads of the country. And it is necessary to bear in mind that the majority which may bring this about may be a wholly insignificant majority in point of numbers. It may also be a majority having no relation whatever to the number of votes by which it is supported in the country. It may be a majority reflecting the gross anomalies of our electoral system as we know it to-day. In fact, it is not too much to say it may be a majority representing only a minority of the votes of the electors throughout the country. Then, my Lords, it may be a precarious and dwindling majority, a majority no longer in what the Prime Minister describes as the "plenitude of its powers." Again, it may be an ill-assorted majority, not representing some great concentrated body of public opinion, but a majority representing, as it were, a patchwork of causes and political creeds. And finally it may be a majority which has been returned not upon one issue, but upon half a dozen different issues. A majority so composed may have been secured by those methods of curtailing discussion, in the House of Commons with which we are becoming more and more familiar with every year that passes. From such a majority under this Bill literally nothing—nothing whatever—is safe. The most fundamental issues are at its mercy. It may insist upon the passage of measures inflicting irreparable injury upon our most cherished institutions. The Crown is not safe, the Constitution is not safe, the Union is not safe, the. Church is not safe, our political liberties are not safe—literally no institution, however much revered and respected in this country, is beyond the reach of a majority of the kind which I described just now. If any noble Lords disagree with my account of the way in which the clause will operate, I trust that as this discussion continues they will be good enough to tell me at what point I have gone wrong in my estimate.
As a climax, even this Bill which we are now discussing, for which the Government claim to have received a definite mandate from the people of this country—even this Bill may be fundamentally altered. It is revolutionary now, but it may be made much more revolutionary if it suits you to do so. There is no doubt about that, because some audacious Peers upon this side of the House put the noble Viscount opposite under a sort of cross-examination,
102
and we elicited from him—he was rather a good witness from our point of view—that if the sit nation altered in such a manner as to be inconvenient to his Majesty's Government, His Majesty's Government did not desire to be hampered by any pledges as to what they might do or might not do in regard to the further limitation of the powers of this House.
We are of opinion that this procedure is of a very violent description, and wholly and utterly unfair as between the two Houses of Parliament. And, my Lords, we say there is no decently governed country in the world in which you will find a counterpart of the kind of system which is going to be introduced by this Bill. It involves a complete overturning of our present Parliamentary system—the system under which this House has hitherto claimed and exercised, although very rarely its undoubted right of reserving measures for the final arbitrament of the people of this country. And finally let me say that in our view the revolution is a wholly unnecessary one, because we on this side of the House fully admit that some readjustment of the relations of the two Houses is necessary and because it is notorious that we are ready to meet you in a reasonable spirit if you desire to take that task in hand. I have dwelt upon these considerations because when we plead that in certain cases and with regard to certain measures the procedure of this clause shall not apply, it is necessary to bear in mind how violent, how reckless, the procedure of this clause really is.
But, my Lords, we have read the Bill a second time, and we therefore do not ask you to expunge that procedure from the Bill. We only desire to suggest that certain measures in certain circumstances should receive a somewhat less drastic treatment, and for all other measures we are, I will not say content, but we are ready, to make the best of the meagre opportunities which the Bill still leaves us until such time as the Constitutional question has been further and more completely dealt with.
What, then, are the measures for which we claim an exceptional treatment? To most of our minds it will at once have occurred that, above all other measures, measures affecting the Constitution of this country are entitled to some protection of this kind. There is a difference between altering ordinary

103
legislation and altering the machinery by which all legislation is made. And, my Lords, in claiming such treatment for Constitutional measures we should only be following the example of all properly-governed countries. I do not think I shall be contradicted by noble Lords opposite when I say that you may search in vain amongst the Constitutions of foreign countries, or indeed of our own Colonies, for a system under which Constitutional legislation is placed upon exactly the same footing as ordinary legislation. At any rate you will find that the distinction, if not universal, is almost universal, and that the safeguards against ill-considered change in regard to Constitutional legislation are so strict as to be in some cases almost prohibitory. That is notoriously the case in regard to the Constitution of the United States, and I think it is also true of the Constitution of Belgium. At any rate of this I am sure, that you will search in vain for a system under which Constitutional legislation is left entirely at the mercy of one House of Parliament.
I say frankly I wish we could have suggested to your Lordships' House a formula under which Constitutional legislation would have been specially protected as such, but I am bound to say that the difficulty of devising such a formula seems to me insurmountable. In the first place, we in this country have no written Constitution to protect, and therein we differ entirely from other countries having a written Constitution. In the case of this country a great many of the rights which we regard as Constitutional rights are derived, not from a written Constitution, but from the common law, and it would therefore be, I am constrained to admit, impossible to devise any form of words which would protect, as such, Constitutional legislation from the kind of treatment which we so much apprehend. All, therefore, that we feel we can do is to enumerate certain cases in which we claim that special treatment should be provided for, and to specify certain contingencies in which such treatment should be insured.
As to our reservations, if your Lordships will be good enough to look at the Amendment on the Paper you will see that our list is a short one. In our view a long list would be undesirable, and for this reason. If we specify a great number of subjects and then go on to say that any legislation
104
in any way affecting those subjects is to be taken out of the scope of this Bill, it is quite obvious that we open out a very large field indeed, and we encounter the kind of difficulties which in my belief we should have encountered if we had accepted the Amendment proposed last night from the Benches behind me by my noble friend Lord Halifax. Apart from this the result of a large enumeration of measures of that kind would, in our view, be not only to take too much out of the Bill, but it would also have another effect which we should deprecate—I mean that it would certainly create suspicion and apprehension in the minds of all those who found that we had not made any special provision for the protection of their interests. Therefore, my Lords, so far as enumeration goes, our list is a very short one.
We say, in the first place, that measures affecting the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto are to be exempted, and that measures establishing a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, with legislative powers, shall also be exempted, and we suggest that in those cases no Bill shall be presented to His Majesty or receive the Royal Assent until it has been put to and approved by the electors of this country. I do not think it is necessary to detain your Lordships by a statement of the reasons for w inch we desire that an exception should be made in favour of measures affecting the Crown. I can conceive no objection to our proposal unless it be a repetition of the objection which we have already heard to other proposals made on this side of the House—namely, that it is preposterous to suppose that any legislation which any British Government was likely to make itself responsible for would be calculated to affect or to impair the position of the Sovereign of this country. I am far from suggesting that I regard such legislation as highly probable, but I do think it not irrelevant to say that many things are happening to-day which the Liberal Ministers who within my recollection used to sit upon the Benches opposite would have regarded as wholly inconceivable, and it does not seem to me altogether unreasonable to imagine that the progress which the Liberal Party has made might be continued with even accelerated speed. We, at any rate, attach great importance to the question of principle involved in this Amendment, and we hold

105
strongly that the first exemption—that having regard to the existence of the Crown and the Protestant. Succession—should be introduced into the Bill.
Now I pass to the second subject for which we demand special treatment. In that case, at any rate, we are certainly not dealing with an imaginary or a remote danger. Home Rule is at our doors. So far as we understand the intentions of His Majesty's Government, they hope by the year 1914 to have carried a Home Rule Bill without reference to the people of this country. Is our demand that a reservation should be made with regard to Home Rule so unreasonable? The country has twice pronounced clearly against Home Rule, and what is there that you can appeal to for the purpose of convincing us that the country has changed its mind? There have been three General Elections. The Parliament of 1906 was—I am quoting the words of the Prime Minister—"disabled" front dealing with the question of Home Rule. What of the Parliament formed after the election of January, 1910? You had in the meanwhile resumed your liberty to deal with Home Rule. You had to resume it. You would never have obtained the support of your Irish supporters if you had not formally resumed the right, to deal with Home Rule. But do not tell me that the election of January, 1910, turned upon the question of Home Rule. We all know what the election turned upon. It turned upon the rejection of the Budget by the House of Lords. It was admitted to turn upon that by noble Lords opposite, and we are constrained to admit that they were right. Well, what of the second election in 1910? I know quite well that the noble Viscount will cite the speeches of his colleagues to show that Home Rule was more or less present to their minds at the time of the election, and they will probably cite our speeches, which they are very fond of doing, in this connection. But, my Lords, the fact remains that at the time of the second election of 1910 the attention of the voters of this country was concentrated, not upon Home Rule, but upon what noble Lords opposite described as the conflict between the Peers and the people. That was the issue which they forced upon the country. I say then, so far as these three elections are concerned, that I can find no mandate for the reintroduction of the measures
106
on Home Rule which the country formally rejected, and still less can I find a mandate for the introduction of some entirely new sub-genus of Home Rule of the kind which we know occupies a great deal of space in the minds of noble Lords opposite, but which they have never been at pains to explain either to us or to the country.
Only one word more about Home Rule. I know that what His Majesty's Government desire with all their hearts is a settlement of the Irish question. I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) nods assent. But is this the way to get a real settlement of the Irish question? Speaking for myself, I would say that if this issue were to be put fairly and squarely before the electors, if the electors were to decide against us, I should acknowledge that we had done all we could, and I would endeavour to make the best of the new order of things. But the case will be wholly different if Home Rule has been foisted upon the people of this country and especially upon the Irish Loyalists, not as the result of the deliberate judgment of the country, but foisted upon them as the outcome of a transaction in the Lobbies of the House of Commons. A measure of Home Rule so passed will, I am deeply convinced, be no settlement., and will never be accepted as such, either in this country or in Ireland.
For measures coming within these two categories we suggest that resort to the Referendum should be obligatory. I may be asked why we want the Referendum. This is not the occasion for a disquisition upon the merits of the Referendum, and all that I will say with regard to it is this, that, desiring as we do to find a way out of these great Constitutional deadlocks, the Referendum seems to us not only a way, but the only way, of ascertaining with any approach to accuracy whether the people of this country want or do not want a particular measure. It seems to us the only way of obtaining a decision focussed upon a particular point and disentangled from all the other different issues which may be in the minds of the people at the time—it seems to us the only corrective of those anomalies of our representative system of which I spoke a moment ago—a system under which, as we know, a vote in the House of Commons may represent anything between, say, 2,000 or 50,000 votes in the country. And lastly the

107
Referendum commends itself to us because it seems to us in accordance with common sense that when there is a persistent difference between the two Houses of Parliament the last word should be said by the people of this country. What is the attitude of noble Lords opposite towards the Referendum? As was truly said by a noble friend of mine on the Back Benches yesterday, they are by no means opposed in principle to the Referendum. The difference between us and them is a question of degree. They desire that if it be used it should be used in exceptional circumstances and upon, grave issues—I think that is their usual formula. At any rate, in their eyes the Referendum is not a kind of unholy thing to be brushed on one side as inadmissible. It is a mere question of the extent to which it is legitimate and proper to introduce it into our Parliamentary system.
Then I may be told—I think I very likely shall be told—that while we are contemplating recourse to the Referendum there is at this moment no machinery in existence for applying it. That is quite true. But my answer to that is that there is not the slightest difficulty in providing the machinery of the Referendum. There are serious difficulties and serious differences of opinion with regard to the occasions upon which it is proper that the Referendum should be used, but the machinery of the Referendum is a comparatively simple matter, and if noble Lords opposite will give us the slightest encouragement we are perfectly prepared to introduce a few days hence a Bill dealing with the machinery of the Referendum. My noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh has a Bill dealing with the machinery of the Referendum which is still before your Lordships' House, and my noble friend Lord Saltoun, who had an Amendment upon that subject, has also proposed a scheme of his own. Therefore I shall not be at all intimidated if I am told that we are out of order in introducing the Referendum because there is no Referendum Act upon the Statute Book.
In these two cases we suggest that the Referendum should be obligatory, but there are many other cases in which we think that in certain circumstances and under certain conditions resort might be had to the Referendum with great advantage. What we suggest is this, that when a
108
Bill has been referred to the Joint Committee, of which I shall say a word presently, and when the Committee are of opinion that the Bill raises an issue of great gravity and one upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained, then the Bill shall go to the Referendum. In our view this procedure is the most reasonable which can be suggested for deciding whether a particular measure is one which should go to a Referendum or not. I do not know whether the converse proposition is likely to be asserted. Shall we be told that although a measure is admittedly grave and although the electors of the country have never had it submitted to them, nevertheless such a measure ought to go through merely because it has been supported two years running by a bare and perhaps accidental majority of the House of Commons? In our view a carefully constituted Committee is the proper mode of deciding whether in these cases a Referendum should be had or not. We found, I will not say in existence, but at any rate in existence upon the Paper of Amendments, the Committee proposed by my noble friend Lord Cromer to deal with certain questions arising under the first clause of the Bill, and it seemed to us convenient and reasonable to adopt that Committee for the purpose which we have in view. My noble friend's Committee is designed to be an impartial Committee, an experienced Committee, carefully chosen and within Parliament, which I know is a condition to which noble Lords opposite attach importance. But, my Lords, we have not yet arrived at any final decision as to the manner in which this Committee should be constituted. We are not particular as to the constitution of the Committee provided it is impartial and independent and within Parliament. I see that my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn has an Amendment on the Paper suggesting a Committee composed differently from the Committee of Lord Cromer. I do not think we care very much which Committee may be chosen. There is a great deal to be said for the Committee recommended by Lord St. Aldwyn. It, perhaps, meets the rather extraordinary objection that was raised the other evening to Lord Cromer's Committee by, I think, the noble Viscount, who told us that it was impossible to form a good Committee of the kind suggested by Lord Cromer because parliamentary politicians might be divided into

109
the three categories—cranks, nobodies, and partisans.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I did not say nobodies.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My noble friends behind me think the noble Viscount did use the expression "cranks, nobodies and partisans." At any rate, Lord St. Aldwyn's Committee would be less open to that imputation, whatever it is worth, and we are quite ready to discuss it when we come to Lord Cromer's Amendment.
Assuming then that we have a fairly constituted Committee, a strong and independent Committee, would the task which we are going to assign to it be one of such insuperable difficulty? Why should it be? They have to decide two points. First, Is the issue a grave issue? I think we could easily find two or three members of this House to whom we should all be quite content to entrust the decision on that point. The second thing they have to decide is, Has the issue been adequately submitted to the judgment of the country I dare say there would be differences of opinion as to that, but surely in all these questions the quality of common-sense which we rather pride ourselves upon possessing in this country would come into play, and you would get, certainly I should think in nine cases out of ten, a perfectly reasonable and satisfactory decision. I would ask noble Lords to remember this also. Supposing the Committee does not decide in your view or in ours quite wisely in a particular case what is the worst thing that can happen under our proposal? The worst thing that can happen under our proposal is that the measure goes to a Referendum and is pronounced upon by the people of this country. The thing does not end in the triumph of the House of Lords, it does not end in the triumph of the Committee, it ends in an appeal to the voters of this country, and that is the idea which, strangely enough, the Liberal gorges of noble Lords opposite seem to rise against with unvarying disgust. In our view a Committee of this kind, appointed, remember, at the beginning of each Parliament, not each session, set up at the beginning of each Parliament with the concurrence of both Houses, representing all that is best in the way of knowledge and experience and impartiality to be found in the two Houses, and empowered to decide, not the fate
110
of the Bill but whether the Bill should go to a Referendum or not—a Committee of that kind would, in our view, be an extremely valuable addition to the Parliamentary machinery of this country.
I am obliged to anticipate objections which may be raised to our scheme, and I am led by what has been said during the recent debates to anticipate another objection. I feel sure that we shall be told that a Committee of this kind is a very new and startling and reprehensible innovation. I think we shall be told that it is a dire thing to put the Houses of Parliament under the yoke of a Committee of this kind, that it will be a kind of super-Parliament—something never dreamed of in the history of our political existence. I make one rejoinder, and one rejoinder only, to that objection should it be made. It is not for you to complain of us for introducing innovations. It is you who in this Bill are introducing the most tremendous innovation which has ever been proposed to the Parliament of this country. It is you who are going to get rid of the Constitutional check afforded by the existence of a Second Chamber with real powers. It is you who are going to allow a casual majority in one House of Parliament to deprive the people of this country of their Constitutional right. And if the remedy which we propose for this state of things seems to yon strange and distasteful, pray do not forget that it is you who are introducing the poison which that remedy is designed to counteract.
Then, my Lords, there is one other objection which I am obliged to anticipate. I think we are likely to be told that this plan for a Joint Committee would work unfairly as between the two great political Parties. I have seen the objection put this way. While the Liberal Government is in power, we are told that there would be differences between the two Houses and that the Joint Committee would be constantly invoked. It is said on the other hand, that if the Conservative Party were in power and this House still contained an overwhelming Conservative majority, there would be no differences and therefore no appeals to the Joint Committee. That is an objection which is very likely to be made. But there is surely an answer to that. In the first place, not only with regard to this matter but with regard to all the questions which we have lately been debating, it seems to me

111
that noble Lords opposite are never able to take more than the narrowest Party view of the issue. Surely what we have to think of is not merely whether this Party or that will score two or three points in the political game. What we have to think of are the interests of the country. And looked at from the point of view of the national interest, is it not quite clear that safeguards of the kind which we are suggesting will be much more necessary when you are in power than when we are in power? I do not know whether I need press that further, but I, for one, am deeply impressed with the truth of what I am saying.
But if that answer does not seem sufficient, I suggest another. The objection which I am endeavouring to deal with is based upon the assumption that we still have our present overwhelming majority in this House, and that therefore the conditions must, always be unfair so far as this House is concerned. The remedy is in your hands. You have only to carry out your pledges and to proceed with the reform of this House, and if you do so, and do so, as the Prime Minister tells us you intend, within the compass of the present Parliament, you may have the question settled and this House constituted fairly as between the two Parties before a single case can arise under the clause which we are now discussing. For it must, not be forgotten that the finding of the Joint Committee could not take place until after the three rejections and the two years have passed—that is to say, I suppose somewhere about the year 1914, by which time you will have had ample time to try your hand at the task of House of Lords reform.
One other observation suggests itself to me. If you are afraid of our plan working unfairly as between the two Parties, are we not entitled to say that we provide a precaution against that in the shape of the Joint Committee? We postulate that the Joint Committee shall be fairly constituted as between the two Parties. That is a sine quâ non. and is clearly intended by my noble friend's Amendment, and by the Amendment of Lord St. Aldwyn, and if you have a perfectly fair Committee you may trust that Committee to see to it that the machinery of this clause is not unfairly used.
Let me say one word more on this point. If you still think that our proposal really will work unfairly as between the two Parties,
112
we are quite ready to examine, with the utmost respect, any suggestion that may be made for the purpose of removing that unfairness. For myself I would go almost any length to meet that, charge of unfairness, and if noble Lords opposite—I do Rot venture to assume that they will do so—would entertain and discuss with us this proposed procedure we would do anything in our power to make it work with absolute equality between their Party and ours. Our point of view is, of course, not the same point of view as that of noble Lords opposite. We are thinking of the great danger which may arise during the interval when the House of Lords is as we see it to-day, but shorn of all its powers, and the time when that new House of which noble Lords hold out hopes has been constituted. And we desire to provide precautions that shall prevent the hasty passing of dangerous and ill-considered measures during that interval. I can understand that noble Lords opposite may have in view a different contingency. They are, perhaps, thinking of a time when both Houses might be of one mind—a Conservative majority here, and a Conservative majority there, and when consequently it would be the minority which would need protection. Now it certainly would be a strong thing to suggest that when both Houses of Parliament are agreed the decision of the two Houses might be reopened on the motion of a minority. But if that is really the danger which noble Lords have in view, I think we should most of us be quite ready to say that, at any rate so long as this House remained unreformed, a reference to the Joint Committee might be demanded either by a minority—of course, a substantial minority—of the House of Commons or by the Speaker of the House of Commons on behalf of such a minority, in spite of the fact that there was a majority in both Houses in favour of the measure under discussion. And it seems to me that if some provision of that kind—I dare say noble Lords might suggest a better one—were to be introduced, not one word could be said against, the absolute fairness of the procedure which would take place under this clause as we propose to amend it. I see indeed that my noble friend Lord Cromer intends, in the Amendment which he will move hereafter, to propose that the Joint Committee might be set in motion in certain cases by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I have just handed in an Amendment to that effect.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: In conclusion, I hope I make it clear that in any case what will be demanded will be, not the Referendum as a right, but merely a reference to the Joint Committee, which might or might not decide that a Referendum was proper or desirable. I hope I have said enough to show that there is something, at any rate, to be said for the principle for which we are contending—namely, that certain measures, and other measures in certain cases, should receive a treatment less violent and drastic than the treatment provided by this clause. We have made the proposal which seems to us best to meet the case, and we conceive that it is a proposal which does not involve the destruction of the Bill, and which does not involve the retention by this House of any rights in excess of those which it at present unquestionably possesses. But, as I have already said, if other proposals are made with the same object we are ready to discuss them with an open mind. I do very earnestly trust that we shall be met by helpful criticism, and not by that merely destructive criticism which is all that we have up to the present been able to elicit from the other side. I trust that we shall not be told. as we have been told two or three times, that the precautions which we suggest are uncalled for because this Bill merely stereotypes the existing relations of the two Houses of Parliament as interpreted by reasonable men. That is an argument which I hope noble Lords will forgive me for saying convinces no one, and I cannot bring myself to believe that they themselves are convinced by it. I hope that, at any rate in the discussion which commences this evening, that argument is not the one upon which His Majesty's Government will rely.
Amendment. Moved—
Page 2, line 33, after ("sessions") insert (Provided further that any Bill—

(a) affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto; or

(b) which establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein; or

(c) which has been referred to the joint Committee, and which in their opinion raises an issue of great gravity upon which the judgment of the country has not been sufficiently ascertained
114
shall not be presented to Isis Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this section unless and until it has been submitted to and approved by the electors in manner to be hereafter provided by Act of Parliament.

(2) Any question whether a Bill comes within the meaning of paragraphs (a) (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall be decided by the Joint Committee").—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, it would be quite impossible for the most censorious opponent of noble Lords opposite to find any fault with the temper and the spirit which have marked the noble Marquess's speech, more especially the closing portions of it. But I think he is unreasonable in this. He asks us who have got our own plan-bad if you like, but the definite plan, the definite proposals in the Bill—to transfer our energies to the construction of this new piece of machinery. I do not think he is justified in expecting that of us. The noble Marquess began by saying the Bill is a monstrous innovation. I believe the historian will say that the most gigantic of all the innovations of the last two years is the noble Marquess's own Bill for the reconstitution and reform of this House.
This Amendment really may be divided into two sections. The first portion provides that any Bill affecting the existence of the Crown, or making a national Parliament and so forth, should be subject to particular treatment. But then in subsection (c) to which the noble Marquess has naturally and properly devoted the most operative portion of his speech, he raises the question of the Joint Committee. As for the first set of proposals the first concerns the succession to the Crown. Well. I cannot imagine a House of Commons passing a Bill impairing the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto. You cannot conceive a House of Commons which is not as devoted to the Monarchy as this House is to-day. I cannot speak, of course, of two or three centuries ahead; we never can be sure of what will happen. But if there ever came a period when the House of Commons passed a Bill affecting the Protestant succession or the existence of the Crown, the Sovereign would have nothing to do but to change his Ministers. If your Lordships opposed such a Bill the Sovereign would change his Ministers, and you would then find whether that House which had abused this Bill in a way which to us

115
to-day seems so repulsive had or had not the opinion of the country behind it.
Now let me pass on to the second subsection of the noble Marquess's Amendment—any Bill which "establishes a National Parliament or Assembly or a National Council in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, or England, with legislative powers therein." He very naturally defended that exclusion from the operation of the Bill by saying that Constitutional changes in nearly all other countries—perhaps he said all other countries—are regarded exceptionally, and that exceptional provision is made for dealing with any Constitutional change that opinion may demand. The noble Marquess at once saw a difficulty—I will use a stronger word, an impossibility—when he said that you cannot define, you cannot discover, the draftsman cannot invent a formula to distinguish a Constitutional from an unconstitutional change in a. country like our own. If you have a written Constitution it is quite easy to know whether the proposed change is Constitutional or not. That does not apply to this country, which lives under an unwritten Constitution, and which has hitherto distinguished between the Constitutional and the unconstitutional by custom and not by formula.
Then the noble Marquess dwelt, not at all at excessive length, on self-government for Ireland, and he assumed, wrongly, that I should open my observations by reading out extracts from speeches made by my colleagues, and perhaps from some by noble Lords opposite. His point is that we have no authority for thinking of a Home Rule Bill, and that the country has not been consulted upon it and did not dream of a Home Rule Bill, If that be so our electors must be really the most extraordinary dupes that could be found in any country. I am not going to quote a number of passages, but. I cannot resist quoting two passages from the noble Marquess himself. He said at Glasgow in November,1910—
"What will happen supposing this new dispensation comes into force? Home rule will go through at once without limber ado. Next time, in 1913, it goes through."
I wonder whether the people of Glasgow believed the noble Marquess? Having explained this in the North he then went to the South, to Portsmouth, and what
116
did he say at Portsmouth? I will read it to you. He said—
"If the Government are returned to power the Nationalists will be paid in full and will get Home Ride of the Parnellite type."
When a man of the noble Marquess's prominence and influence warns the electors fully in that way, are we to suppose that they paid no attention whatever to what he said? That is the only quotation with which I will venture to trouble the House upon that point.
I must say a little more about Home Rule. I think I may say that no Member of this House, present at all events, knows as well as I do the difficulties of constructing a scheme of Home Rule. I have been in two Governments representing the Irish Administration and I was concerned in the manufacture of two such Bills. Therefore I am well acquainted with the enormous difficulties and complexities that have to be surmounted in the construction of a Home Rule Bill. The noble Marquess deprecated the constant measurement of things by Party calculations and computations, and for a moment I would ask you to suppose that a Home Rule Bill would be brought in, not because we are said to be dependent on the Irish vote, but because some of us are convinced and have been convinced for a great number of years that improved government in Ireland is absolutely essential. I will not now trespass on the patience of the House by going into a. discussion of Home Rule on its merits. That will be quite proper when the Home Rule Bill comes before this House. I think it has been said in this House, "We do not know what Home Rule Bill you are going to produce." Quite true. The noble Marquess, at all events, knows that Cabinets do not hatch a Bill a year before it is required by Parliamentary necessity, and I am glad he did not raise that point, which really is an absurd one. Whether Bills are Tory or Liberal Bills, they are constructed after Cabinet discussion and infinite discussion with draftsmen, and so forth, and to ask us how what sort of Bill we are going to bring in is unreasonable. The noble Marquess, however, told the electors at Portsmouth that it was going to be a Bill of the Parnellite type. We shall see.
Then, my Lords, there is one point—not a very palatable one—I would like to make. Agreeing with the noble Marquess

117
in desiring a pacific agreement, if it can be possibly obtained, I must point out that to insist on reserving for this House a deciding voice in reshaping the government of Ireland appears to me as maladroit. What has been the record of this House, and the record of its voice in Irish affairs during the hundred years since the Union? What has been the mainstay of all those prejudices and passions, religious and otherwise, in this country but the policy almost uniformly pursued in this House? The opinion of Ireland has been recklessly disregarded for the best part of that 100 years. There has not been a single representative of the great bulk of the Irish population in this House. There is not one to-day. How could Irish legislation be other than ignorant and mischievous and retrograde when you in this House and your fathers were so ignorant of and un-concerned with the opinion and sentiment of Ireland? It cannot be denied that the mischief of absentee Irish landlordism has been aggravated by the mischief of an absentee Parliament, because that is what it has come to.
I turn now to the next subsection—subsection (c)—of the noble Marquess's Amendment. I have studiously considered this part of the noble Marquess's scheme, and I say that it is a direct and plain traverse of the Pill. The noble Earl, Lord Clanwilliam, said last night that he only abstained from voting against the Second Reading of the Bill because he looked to noble Lords opposite to make root and branch Amendments in it. This is indeed a root and branch Amendment. What is the foundation of it? It is not so much an Amendment as a great scheme, and it involves a complete distrust of the ultimate judgment of the House of Commons. It is a plain denial of the principle of the Bill, which is that after two years of discussion the ultimate judgment of the House of Commons does represent the real opinions of the electors. The noble Marquess said that he and his friends are not bound to the Amendment of my noble friend on the Cross Benches (Lord Cromer), and they are prepared to consider the Amendment put down since Lord Cromer's by Lord St. Aldwyn. The difference, as the House knows, is that according to Lord Cromer's Amendment the Joint Committee is to be composed of seven men chosen by the Speaker and seven chosen by the Lord Chancellor.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Under my proposal the fourteen are to be chosen jointly by the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker. Lord Heneage has an Amendment to the effect mentioned by the noble Viscount, but my Amendment says jointly.
VISCOUNT MORLEY of BLACKBURN: The Amendment has taken a modified form, quite rightly, in the hands of my noble friend. Lord St. Aldwyn's Amendment proposed a Joint Committee. I do not apologise for going into this detail, because my argument, although it does not turn upon that alone, affects that. He proposes a Joint, Committee consisting of the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords, the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons, a Lord of Appeal to be chosen by and from the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and other Peers of Parliament holding or having held high Judicial office, and an odd member to be appointed by the Speaker.
Personally I am indifferent as to how this Committee is to be formed. However composed, let us see what it is to do. It is to decide, without appeal, as I understand, first, whether a general Bill raises an issue of great gravity; secondly, whether they think that the judgment of the country on that Bill has been sufficiently ascertained; and thirdly, whether it is in their view an occasion for a Referendum. Now, these 15 gentlemen, and they alone, are to be the judges. They oust—and this is not a bit of exaggeration—the responsible Ministers of the Crown; they override and supersede the House of Commons; they are clothed with a power which your Lordships have long ago ceased to maintain in its panoply—namely, the power of compelling an operation which is in effect tantamount in its essential features and practical effects—I mean the Referendum—to a Dissolution. Does any noble Lord say that he is in favour of giving this House the right of compelling a Dissolution? You no doubt did it eighteen months ago, not with a very good effect; but here it is suggested that it does not matter what the House of Commons thinks, no matter what the Ministers think, this Committee are to decide upon any question which is referred to them and their decision shall be final and conclusive for all purposes,

119
and shall not be questioned in any Court of Law. Can we imagine a single Bill being rejected three times in this House which does not raise an issue of great gravity? Noble Lords will be disparaging this House very much if they look forward to a time when it will reject a Bill three times unless the issue is a grave one. Then I must remind the House that the procedure under the noble Marquess's Amendment will only arise when the Bill is ready for submission to the Sovereign.
There is another point to be considered. There may be a General Election in the middle of the discussion of one of these disputable Bills. Many Amendments in this House and in the other House turn on the necessity of interposing a General Election in the course of the debate. Suppose that a Bill has been discussed and rejected twice, and there is a General Election for other reasons; and suppose that the Government are returned to power with a majority showing that they have the public confidence. According to the Amendment of the noble Marquess, however, the Joint Committee is, in spite of the fact that the majority of the House of Commons and the Government have the support and the confidence of the country, to be able to say that the opinion of the country on this Bill has not been ascertained. You are giving the Joint Committee an authority to override the verdict of a General Election, and you are erecting an impossible tribunal to decide two impossible questions—what is a matter of gravity, and whether the opinion of the country has been ascertained.
Does any noble Lord pretend that such a Committee, not appointed by nor responsible to the House of Commons, not responsible to anybody, is a democratic expedient? All political definitions are uncommonly hard, and I certainly do not mean to try my hand at a definition of Democracy, because we are not to-night dealing with definitions, but with things and actual facts. In all seriousness do you reasonably expect that the House of Commons, chosen only six months ago, after months and months of incessant public discussion, is going to part wholesale with its own supremacy—it was a conspicuous issue at the election—and then to entrust its proceedings under penalty of an appeal to the country to this Committee? I cannot think so. Can any one
120
seriously pretend that any single elector in any constituency was thinking, when he gave his vote, of this scheme? He had never heard of it. When you reprove us for confusing the issues there was not a single elector—I am not sure that there were many of your Lordships who assented to the Second Reading of the Bill—who thought for a moment that the end of it was to be a supersession of the House of Commons and the erection of the supremacy of this House through the medium of a Joint Committee. I am certain that prospect was in no one's mind, though I will not say it was not in the mind of the noble Marquess.
I have been reproached during the last few days, not too severely, for being unwilling to compromise and concede. Compromise and concession are, of course, two jewels of Parliamentary statesmanship, although they do not involve the very highest and most ideal virtues. But will anybody say that I am showing an uncompromising and non-conciliatory spirit when I say that the Government cannot accept for an instant this Amendment? It is impossible to concede it without teasing sip the whole policy, purpose, and principle of our Bill. Therefore I say, at all risks and hazards and with sincere regret—if the refusal by the Government of this Amendment precludes what the noble Marquess spoke of, consultation and discussion—it is impossible to concede it, and I really believe that not one of your Lordships in candour can say that we could possibly accept any such scheme as this.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: Your Lordships will have noticed on the Paper an Amendment standing in my name following that which we are now discussing. As the Amendment of the noble Marquess covers the Amendment with regard to Ireland which I have put down, and as I am informed that my contemplated Amendment would not be in order, I think it right that I should rise at the present time, not only to give support generally to the Amendment of my noble friend, but to devote myself to that part of it in connection with Ireland which I and my friends from Ireland, and I think I may say the whole Unionist Party in Ireland, feel is the crux of the situation with regard to this measure. Mr. Balfour very truly stated, in the Albert Hall, that if there

121
had been no question of Home Rule there, would have been no Parliament Bill, I believe that view is endorsed by every Unionist; indeed, I doubt very much if any member on the Government Bench will contradict me in that statement. Consequently we in Ireland regard this Parliament Bill as embracing a measure of Home Rule, to which we shall offer, not only now, but at every stage so far as possible in the future, our most strenuous and vigorous opposition.
It has been said, especially last night in connection with the discussion on Disestablishment of the Church in Wales, that it is the object of His Majesty's Government, by means of this Bill, to carry through Parliament measures which have never been brought before the people of this country or their opinions asked upon them. That, I think, was the line taken by the right rev. Prelate and by other noble Lords who spoke in connection with Disestablishment. But, my Lords, if it is important that the question of the disestablishment of the Welsh Church should be brought forward prominently before the people before it is carried into law, how much more important, then, is it to insist on the question of Home Rule being brought, before the people of this country before it is passed, when we remember that on the two occasions during the past twenty-five years on which it has been put forward clearly the people have spoken in no uncertain terms with regard to it and decided that they will not have Home Rule? The noble Viscount, in the course of his remarks in relation to Ireland, twitted the noble Lord with regard to the charge of the Unionist Party that Home Rule had not been brought forward prominently by the Liberal Party at the last General Election, and he alluded to two speeches of my noble friend behind me. My noble friend was perfectly right in what he said. He was forecasting what would be the action of the Government if this Bill became law.
May I ask the noble Viscount opposite, Why did the Prime Minister and his colleagues make no mention of Home Rule in their election addresses to their constituents? Mr. Asquith made no mention of it in his election address. On the contrary, he kept it entirely in the background until he was heckled by one of his audience, and even then, if I may say
122
so, he only gave an evasive answer, so anxious was he to keep it in the background. But Mr. Asquith was not alone in not mentioning Home Rule in his address. I notice that the Home Secretary, and Mr. Pease, Mr. McKenna, Mr. Herbert Samuel. and even the Minister most concerned, Mr. Birrell, thought Home Rule of not sufficient importance to be mentioned in that important document issued by candidates to their constituents. Liberal candidates also followed the example of their leaders. The addresses of 510 Liberal and Labour candidates at the last General Election have been examined, and in 269 cases—more than half—no reference to Home Rule was made. I think we are justified in saving that the leaders of the Radical Party, if they had intended by means of the Parliament Bill to carry Home Rule, ought in common honesty to have brought this matter prominently before the constituencies.
Now, my Lords, I wish to say why we in Ireland, who know Ireland and have studied the Irish question, think it our duty to oppose this Bill by every means in our power. In the first place, we maintain that it is not for the good of Ireland, but is a measure to be passed to recompense Mr. Redmond for having, contrary to the wishes of the people of Ireland, supported the Budget Bill, and since that time maintained in office the present Government. Why do we oppose this Bill? We oppose it because we who know Ireland know that if Home Rule is granted to Ireland there could only follow ruin, disaster, bankruptcy, and, in all probability, civil war. That is the opinion from the Irish point of view. But, my Lords, there are other views taken by English and Scottish people. What is going to be the financial position of Ireland if Home Rule is given? I can tell you what that position will be. After a short period of Home Rule there will be nothing but bankruptcy in Ireland, and English and Scottish people will have to put their hands very deep indeed into their pockets in order to find financial assistance for Ireland to put it back into anything like the prosperous condition that Ireland at the present moment enjoys. At the present time we are waiting to hear the Report of the Financial Committee which has been sent over to Ireland, and it will be very interesting indeed if noble Lords who follow me will tell me that the statements I make

123
with regard to the financial position of Ireland are controverted by that Committee.
Ireland cannot support herself financially at present, and has to be assisted by England, and if Home Rule is granted, naturally in the course of events without that assistance—because if once she is a separate country I do not suppose that England or Scotland will assist her as they do now—Ireland must become bankrupt. At the present moment there is a deficit, and there must be a still greater deficit if English assistance is taken away. The result will be increased taxation upon that most industrious and most profitable part of Ireland which contributes no less than two-thirds of the general revenue of Ireland. Under the present system I have no doubt Ulster is capable of paying that large amount; but if more taxation is imposed upon her she will not be likely to be able to meet it, because capital will not be invested in Ulster in future. It will vanish, and you will have that industrious part of Ireland, now paying two-thirds of the general revenue of Ireland, finding herself absolutely unable to pay anything like that sum. Then, my Lords, the prosperity of Ireland at the present moment is due entirely to the credit that Ireland can get by being associated with England. It has had a vast sum of money advanced to it for various purposes—land reforms and other improvements—because she is connected with England. Separate that connection, and at what rate of interest can money be borrowed? I do not know any one who would care to invest money in Ireland at anything but a very high rate of interest, if even then, when the administration of Ireland is being entrusted to the tender mercies of a body of legislators sitting at College Green, who have shown their capabilities by being themselves absolutely bankrupt in their own financial funds and having to appeal to America, and who have also made bankrupt a number of what were previously industrious and prosperous tenants by inducing them to invest their money, and lose it, in the notorious Plan of Campaign. I ask you whether, with that body of men sitting at the head of a Parliament at College Green, it would be possible for Ireland to borrow money at any rate of interest whatever?
When I last addressed your Lordships' House and devoted the greater part of my
124
speech to the danger involved in Home Rule, the Lord Chancellor, the following day, criticised my observations, and declared that he considered that the case against Home Rule was weakening in the minds of many Conservatives. I was not in a position then to controvert that statement of the Lord Chancellor, but I take the opportunity of controverting it at the present moment, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord, when he replies, whether he can tell me the name of a single Conservative who has ever said one word in public in favour of what is known as Gladstonian Home Rule. I am not prepared to deny that the feeling against Home Rule is not so antagonistic as it was in 1893. The reason is not very hard to seek. It is because the question of Home Rule has not been prominently brought forward before the people of this country since 1893. The year 1893 is a long time ago, and since then a new generation has arisen, and that new generation has learned to believe, not having heard anything of it, that it is merely a thing which has been heard of in the past but will never appear again. It has been kept steadily in the background, and one of the colleagues of the noble Viscount opposite told the English people that they might sleep soundly in their beds because Home Rule was nothing but a "bogey"
Is Home Rule nothing but a "bogey" now, with this Parliament Bill before us? If the noble Viscount thinks Home Rule is not going to occupy a very prominent place in the minds of the people of this country he is making a very great mistake. I can assure him that the people of England, who have not had Home Rule brought prominently before them for nineteen years, are slowly but surely awakening to this danger. In the North of Ireland the people are not only aroused, but are wide awake. I am receiving daily—and my noble friend Lord Templetown will tell you the same—resolutions and communications declaring that at all costs the Protestant people in the North of Ireland will not accept Home Rule. They naturally feel very strongly on the subject, and I can assure your Lordships of this—and I speak with a due sense of responsibility—that if a Home Rule Parliament is created at College Green, and if that Parliament endeavours to administer the affairs of Ireland from College Green without the opinion of the country having been taken

125
on that question, His Majesty's Government will have the rudest awakening that ever a Government have had in the course of modern history.
Now I want particularly to ask one question of the noble Viscount, and that is how he and his colleagues propose to maintain—they certainly will not improve—the present prosperous condition of Ireland if they grant Home Rule to it? The noble Viscount seems to think that if Home Rule were granted to Ireland the millennium would appear. Will be tell me if he can make Ireland more prosperous than it is at the present moment? The noble Viscount seemed to attribute what he called the unfortunate condition of Ireland to the question of absentee landlords. I am going to prove, before I sit down, that the present condition of Ireland is thoroughly prosperous; but even if it were a fact that Ireland was in an unfortunate condition it could not be attributed to Irish landlords, because there are so few of them now. It is the tenants themselves who own the land at the present time, and they will tell you that they are enjoying a prosperity second to none of the tenants in Great Britain.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: When I spoke of absentee landlords and the mischief that they had done, I was not thinking of the landlords of to-day. On the contrary, I was assuming that this House, in legislating for Ireland, had committed a vast number of tremendous errors, and was responsible for the historic misfortune of Ireland. I do not tax the landlords of to-day. I am very glad they are out of Ireland.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I do not follow the noble Viscount in that, but still I do not agree with him. I am correct in this, that there are no landlords to denounce now because they have sold their land to the tenants. But I do ask, How are you going to maintain or increase the present prosperity of Ireland if you establish a Parliament on College Green? The prosperity of Ireland at the present moment is of an almost phenomenal character. I can tell the noble Viscount that there are men returning from America, of all grades of opinion, political arid religious, who went away from Ireland some years ago, and on returning they are delighted to see the extraordinary changes
126
which have taken place. That is admitted, I believe, even by the leaders of the Nationalist Party. These men came back from America, and what do they see? They see those who were occupiers of land when they left now the owners of it, developing to the best of their ability their own land, enjoying thoroughly the responsibility that accrues to ownership, and if you ask any of those men themselves they will tell you that they are in a most prosperous condition. What, again, will the Americans tell you? They will tell you they have observed the cause of technical education steadily advanced in Ireland during the years they have been absent from it. I believe in all the important towns there are technical schools for the improvement of the mind of the younger generation, which will make them still more attached to the holdings in that part of the country in which their lot happens to be cast. When these men to whom I refer left. Ireland what did they see? They saw people then living in mud cabins who are now occupying comfortable cottages, all built by money advanced from English credit.
Let me now turn to the congested districts. I am sure you will be glad to hear that even in that part of Ireland, which appeared at one time a barren district, the condition of the people is steadily improving. The people are now able to develop the resources of the industries connected with their place, and I believe at the present moment those men are making the most of their opportunity. My Lords, all that has been done by money advanced to the congested districts by means of credit with England. There is another thing which I think will show the prosperous condition of Ireland. I turn to what I consider is the best barometer of the financial position of the working classes—the amount of money they have invested in the savings banks. I do not think that any one will deny that that is a sure criterion as to the welfare of the poorer classes, because those are the banks in which they invest their savings. Let me show you the improvement that has taken place. I will take the amount of money invested in the savings banks in Ireland in the year 1881, and compare that year with the present. In 1881 there were £3,800,000 in the savings banks. On December 31, 1910, there were nearly 14½ millions, an increase of about

127
£11,000,000. So, too, it will be found that an increase of the people's savings has also taken place in the congested districts. In those parts—the poorest and most poverty stricken parts of the country—the savings banks deposits have gone up from £300,000 in 1881 to nearly £2,000,000 in the year 1907. How do noble Lords opposite propose to continue that satisfactory state of affairs if a Home Rule Parliament is granted? Remember, my Lords, that the whole of this prosperity is due to the Act of Union, and that the prosperity has taken place since.
It may be said, "Let us try a measure of Home Rule, and see whether we cannot do something." If His Majesty's Government try such an experiment with a country prosperous as Ireland is at the present moment I can only say that they will be undertaking the most risky experiment that will ever have been known. But it is not an experiment. There was a Parliament on College Green—Grattan's Parliament—which sat from 1782 to the year 1800. What was the condition of Ireland under Grattan's Parliament? There was lawlessness in every part of the country. There were no less than fifty-four Coercion Acts, the climax being the great rebellion. Let me read to your Lordships what was the opinion of Mr. Lecky, whom I am sure you will accept as a great historian with regard to Ireland. He says of the unfortunate condition of Ireland in the year 1798 under a Home Rule Parliament—
"Agriculture had ceased; its implements were destroyed; the sheep and cattle had been plundered and slaughtered; the farmers were homeless, ruined, and often starving. Misgovernment and corruption, political agitation and political conspiracy, had done their work, and a great part of Ireland was as miserable and desolate as any part of the habitable globe."
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: What volume of Lecky is the noble Marquess referring to?
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: I have not the volume, but the noble Lord will find the quotation in Fisher's book at page 269. I took it from that, and it is quite correct. But there is even stronger evidence of the lamentable condition in which Ireland was left after the Home Rule Parliament. What did Lord Chancellor Clare say, a man of great authority, who lived on the spot? This
128
is what he said, that before the Act of Union was passed Ireland—
"had not, three years of redemption from bankruptcy or intolerable taxation, nor one hour's security against the renewal of exterminating civil war."
Surely that experience cannot be ignored. With that experience as to what Ireland was under a Home Rule Parliament, to drag Ireland down from her present prosperous position and restore her to that appalling state of lawlessness and misery would not only be a folly, but a crime of the deepest dye. The Prime Minister, in the course of one of his speeches dealing with this question, said that it would be easy for a Government following this one if they chose, to reverse their legislation and go back to the old state of things. I suppose he means to restore Ireland to what it was under the Union. That is a remark with which I cannot agree. He says that in ninety-nine cases out of 100 it is possible. Whether that is right or wrong I do not know, but this is most certainly the hundredth.
Mr. Asquith may talk very lightly, with regard to domestic legislation, of a succeeding Government being able to reverse it; but how would be propose to abolish a Parliament which had been established on College Green? How would Mr. Balfour, supposing he came into office with a mandate from the country to reverse that policy, commence to repeal the repeal of the Union Act. If a Parliament had sat even only for a very short time in Dublin it would have been created with all the dignity, pomp, and paraphernalia associated with Parliament. Posts would have been created, administrative offices established, and Acts of Parliament passed. What would have to be done? There would have to be a repeal of the Act, a repeal of all the Acts that had been passed. and there would be all the difficulty of undoing what had been done in that short period, and I do not believe that such a thing could be brought about without there being civil war in Ireland.
Another question I wish to ask is this. What is going to be the outlook of the loyal Unionist minority in Ireland? Mr. Redmond did not hesitate once to say that they would be overborne by the strong hand. That does not give them great confidence in the creation of a Parliament dominated by Mr. Redmond on College

129
Green. But what I want to point out to your Lordships, and through your Lordships to the people of this country, is that there are two Mr. Redmonds—Mr. Redmond who speaks in England and Mr. Redmond who speaks in Ireland and America. In England Mr. Redmond is all toleration—toleration is to be shown to the Unionist minority, toleration is to be shown to the Protestant minority. But, my Lords, how will that toleration be carried out? I remember well, when the Irish Government Bill was being brought forward and doubts were expressed as to the representation that the Unionist minority would have on the county councils, that Mr. Redmond assured them that they would have their share of the representation. But what happened? On the county councils in the whole of the three Provinces of Ireland, excepting Ulster, there are only sixteen Unionists. Mr. Redmond, having achieved his end, did not hesitate to boast that the county councils, on which there are hardly any Unionists, had proved a network of national organisation. How are we to look to Mr. Redmond for toleration when we have that experience before us? We feel perfectly sure, that being the experience with regard to the election of the county councils, that there would be the same measure of toleration meted out to the Unionist minority if a Home Rule Parliament were established on College Green.
Then we are told that in all probability, if Home Rule is granted, safeguards in the shape of guarantees would be introduced. But, my Lords, are we justified in believing in these guarantees any more than we are in believing Mr. Redmond's promise of toleration? We know that the national organisation would find a way to avoid the guarantees. We had here, if you remember, in the course of the Spring a debate following one in the House of Commons on what is known as the famous McCann case, and a more shameful case of cruelty at the hands of the Catholics to a Protestant was never known. Yet the Government took no part with regard to it, and the situation remains at the present moment exactly as it was, showing to my mind how perfectly possible it is for the Nationalist Party, if they choose, to avoid any safeguard they like. I want to bring before your Lordships a speech made by Cardinal Logue to show the manner in which the Protestant minority would be treated by the Catholic majority should
130
the question arise of money for the purpose of promoting education naturally of an undenominational character. What does Cardinal Logue say with regard to the new National University? I think this is a quotation which ought, not only to be brought before your Lordships, but ought to be brought prominently before all the Protestants of England and Scotland. He says—
"They gave what they hoped to be a Pagan University, but, please God, we will turn it into a Catholic University. They have brought a Mahommedan institution into this country, but turn loose upon it a lot of fine, young Irish Catholics, and they will soon make it a Christian institution. That is what we will do with this new University. No matter what obstacles the Nonconformists of England may have inserted in the constitution of the University to keep it from being made Catholic, we will make it Catholic in spite of them."
How can we, with that before us, put any faith whatever in any guarantees which may be called safeguards? I venture to say they would be absolutely worthless and I shall be glad to be contradicted if I am wrong.
May I again advert to the speeches of Mr. Redmond in Great Britain. He has always spoken here, as I said, with feelings of moderation and loyalty. But let me remind you of one of Mr. Redmond's speeches delivered only four years ago in Ireland—at Wexford. He then said—
"We tell her (England) frankly that the choice of weapons with which we work will be a mere question of expediency with us. We tell her that we to-day hate her rule just as much as our forefathers did, and that we are as much rebels to her rule to-day as our forefathers were in 1798."
Yet this is the man who promised toleration to the loyal Protestant minority in Ireland, and for whom this Bill is to be passed. There is another speech of Mr. Redmond's to which I wish to allude. He would have you in England believe that all he requires in Ireland is a subordinate Parliament, a Parliament partaking in no more active legislation than that of a Province of a Dominion. That is what he would have you believe when he is throwing dust in your eyes. But this is what he says when lie is talking to the people of America—
"We demand an Irish Parliament for Irish affairs, and subject only to the Irish people. Less than that we do not ask, and less than that we shall not accept. They ask us to demand more; and I answer, in the words of Parnell, Let us get this first and then demand more.'"

131
I ask whether the Government consider that any Bill which may be introduced on the lines of Mr. Redmond's English speeches can be considered finally when we have regard to his Irish utterances? I have ventured to point out to your Lordships that Ireland will be bankrupt and ruined, and England in all probability put to considerable discomfort, if a Home Rule measure is passed. I do not believe that the people of Ireland who are contented now and prosperous, as I have shown you, desire to have Home Rule, and if they were permitted to speak freely I think they would say so. Of course, I merely give my opinion? but that is also the opinion of people who know Ireland thoroughly well. Yet you are proposing to restore Ireland at all costs and hazards to that miserable state of affairs which existed before the Union.
I have heard it rumoured that if your Lordships refuse to pass this Bill 500 Peers will be created to swamp the present majority in this House. I cannot believe such a rumour. I cannot believe that any Prime Minister who recognised the responsibility and the dignity of his great position could be found who would do such an absolutely unconstitutional thing and make this country the laughing stock of every nation in the civilised world. More than that, I believe that no honest straightforward Prime Minister would contemplate so revolutionary an action as to smash this Constitution at the bidding of a man who has told him to toe the line, and I believe no patriot could be found who would undertake so dastardly an action as to lay the foundation stone of the disintegration and the dismemberment of the Empire. Any honest and straightforward Prime Minister who desired to grant Home Rule to Ireland, and desired at the same time to act in the best interests of the country, would in a straightforward manner put the question fairly and honestly before the people of this country, and ask them to give him the power to bring in a measure of Home Rule. That would be an honest and straightforward course, and if the country endorsed that appeal from the Prime Minister, fatal as I and my friends behind me believe it would be to Ireland, we should only have one thing to do, and that would be to bow to the will of the people when that will had been expressed.
132
Will the Prime Minister take that line? I believe he will not, because he knows full well, when he casts his mind back to 1886 and to the election of 1895, when Home Rule was fought as a clear issue, that the people with no uncertain voice would declare their detestation of any measure of Home Rule for Ireland, once the arguments for and against Home Rule were clearly and fairly and honestly put before them. What is it that we, the loyal Unionist Protestant party in the North of Ireland, ask? We only ask to be allowed to continue in the future, as we have been in the past, part and parcel of England and maintain the Union under which we have prospered and lived happily, and not to be handed over to the tender mercies of a body of people who have never concealed their detestation of you and of that loyal minority in Ireland who are devoted to the Throne and devoted to England. The loyal Unionist population of Ireland appeal to England now as they did in 1895. They ask you to allow them to remain part and parcel of your Constitution. In the words of their great Order, Quis Separabit? England's answer, I am confident, in the future will be what it has been in the past, that we will not separate Ireland from England, for—
"In fortune and in fame they're bound
By stronger links than steel,
And neither can be safe or sound
But in the other's weal."
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: My Lords, I do not rise to reply to the noble Marquess, because I confess although I have no authority in the matter, I should have thought his speech was quite irrelevant to the issue before us. It would have been a powerful speech if we were discussing the Second Reading of a Home Rule Bill; but we are not discussing that, and it is not relevant to the issue which we are now considering whether Ireland has or has not been prosperous since 1801, and whether the people of Ireland ought or ought not to be content with the treatment they have received. All that may come up on a future occasion, but it has nothing to do with the question which we have now to consider.
The question we have now to consider is whether under any circumstances, and with any modifications, and subject to any conditions, the Amendment which the

133
noble Marquess opposite proposes to introduce in the provisions of this Bill may be entertained, and I confess on that subject that I listened with regret to the unqualified opposition of my noble friend the Leader of the House to the proposition of the noble Marquess. I know the immense difficulties that are involved in that proposition. I know it is novel. I know the expense and turmoil and confusion which might follow the adoption of his proposal if it were put into operation. But, despite all these circumstances, there appears to be much in what the noble Marquess has submitted for your consideration which deserves your attention, and we must not shrink from it because it involves novelties and disturbs our traditional belief, or because it opens before us a vista of future political life with which we have not been familiar in the past. If the occasion demands it, we must face novelties.
I submit—and my noble friend below me will agree—that we are considering to-day a very serious change, an alteration of our procedure which might justify the contemplation of novelties, strange and unfamiliar though they may appear to be. What is the proposition underlying the Bill? I ventured, when I addressed your Lordships with reference to the first clause, to say that I could not conceive of the possibility of the adoption of the principle which the noble Earl on the Cross Bench proposed in reference to the conduct of financial legislation. Financial legislation must be settled peremptorily; it must be settled within the year, and considerations of finance as well as the respect due to the representatives of the people in the matter of taxation require that the financial legislation of the country should be practically the exclusive work of the House of Commons. It grew up to be so, and it was recognised to be so, not merely out of considerations of the right of the people to say how they are to be taxed, but from considerations of political expediency and political management.
But these motives, as I ventured to say in speaking in reference to the first clause, do not apply to the consideration of general legislation. General legislation is rarely in such a hurry. General legislation may be considered on all sides. It may be deferred and brought up to be reconsidered; and the real question which we have to
134
determine is whether, under the provisions of the Bill now before us, we have sufficient reason for confidence that the legislation of the future will always be found conformable to the will of the nation, or whether circumstances may arise under which it may be desirable, if not necessary, to go beyond the machinery of this Bill in order to ascertain whether that conformity exists. The principle of the Referendum is an appeal, as my noble friend said, against the authority of the House of Commons, but it is an appeal from the House of Commons to the electorate at large. It is a democratic appeal; an appeal to all those who have been recognised as fit to join in the election of members of the House of Commons; and to appeal from a subordinate body, however illustrious, and however noble its history, to the power which creates that body is not in itself a necessary degradation. No doubt it involves the confession that that subordinate body cannot, as my noble friend said, be always trusted. Is that confession something which no fact can substantiate? Are we by our past experience, or by the experience of free political communities elsewhere, justified in coming to the conclusion that the House of Commons, even in the first fulness of its life when fresh from the constituencies, necessarily reflects the mind of the nation?
I was very much surprised that the noble Marquess opposite, who marshalled his arguments with uncommon gravity as well as force, did not refer to the recent experience in Australia. That experience is most significant and most instructive. A little more than twelve months ago there was a General Election in Australia conducted according to all those traditions of elections which we regard as fulfilling a complete scheme of democratic organisation, and there issued from those elections a majority, both in the Senate and the House of Representatives, of a substantial character supporting a Labour Ministry. I think it happened in April of last year. The Ministry issuing from that election, supported in both Houses, proceeded to submit to the Legislature of the Australian Commonwealth Bills which they held embodied the policy which had been approved by the Australian electorate. Those Bills passed by substantial majorities; but inasmuch as they involved changes in the Constitution of the Commonwealth, inasmuch as they were concerned with the

135
relations between the Commonwealth and the States composing it and also had to do with the organisation of Labour, it was necessary, under the provisions of the Commonwealth Act, that those Bills should be referred to the judgment of the electorate at large. A Referendum was held, and the result was that those Bills, which had been most successfully carried through the Commonwealth Parliament by a Government supported by large majorities in both Houses, were rejected within twelve months of the General Election by a very strong majority of the electorate of Australia. Could anything be more conclusive? Here was a democratic House of Commons working under the best possible conditions, with no arguments against its authority to be derived from the difference in sizes of constituencies, or from the existence of plural votes, or from any other of the drawbacks which attach to our political institutions—this Parliament so issuing from the electorate of Australia carried through all its stages legislation which, being immediately submitted to the electorate, was repudiated by the electorate.
The experience is significant and instructive in other ways as bearing on the general question of the Referendum. It may be said to dispose of the argument that no Ministry could survive a rebuff so given to it by the electorate when appealed to. For we find in fact that Mr. Fisher's Ministry is going on the same as before. They simply recognised that they had gone beyond the mind of the country. Their counsels may be right. It may be that a year hence, or two years hence, or five years hence, what they propose will be supported by the majority; but for the moment they went beyond the mind of the people, and they have acquiesced in that fact and are going to try and educate the nation up to the point they desire to attain. I understood the noble Viscount to agree with me, but I think he dissents. Does he think it would be convenient for us here to have legislation which went beyond the mind of the nation without any possibility of arresting it? If what could be done in Australia could be repeated here, we should, surely, have done something to avoid it if it could have been avoided. Assume that you are going to instal in the Statute Book Statutes of which the electorate at large disapproved. That is what might happen. That is what did happen in the case of Australia,
136
and that is what we ought to try and prevent here.
You have not the security, even in the first flush after a General Election, not even on a question which has been prominent at the election, that the answer of the House of Commons when it is appealed to would be that of the electorate at large. It is a puzzle which there is often great difficulty in apprehending, and yet it ought not to be particularly difficult to understand how that might come to pass. I always myself seem to see it best in a simple example. Take the City of Sheffield. The City of Sheffield is divided into five constituencies, and has five Members. It happens that in two of those divisions there is a large majority of the electorate one way, and in the other three constituencies there are small majorities of the electorate the other way. The result is that the mind of Sheffield is represented by three Members against two, the three being elected by small majorities, and the two by large majorities. When you put the figures together you find that the two have got the real mind of Sheffield behind them, so that the mind of Sheffield is misrepresented in Parliament. So the mind of the nation has been misrepresented in the past, and might be misrepresented in the future. It is against that difficulty that we want to guard ourselves.
My noble friend will say there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill as it stands. He will say, Have we not got two years' delay? Is not there ample opportunity for discussion in the House of Commons and in the Press? Shall we not have consultations, deliberations, conferences? Is there not throughout the course of Parliamentary life a consciousness on the part of members of the House of Commons of an outside world, with which they will have to come into contact again, and which would prevent them from abusing their present powers if they have reason to think, or to suspect, that they are going in any way beyond the opinion of the country at large? And will not these two years serve to bring out that difference, if it exists, and save us from the calamity which otherwise might be before us? My Lords, as to that feeling on the part of Members, that a time of punishment may conic, I will ask my noble friend to remember, and I would ask noble Lords also

137
to remember, the history of the Parliament of 1900. The Parliament of 1900 was elected upon one issue, and it used its powers, as is now confessed, to pass certain great Acts which were not wholly approved by the electorate, and 1906 was the punishment—the reparation demanded for that abuse of power. The abuse of power was apprehended whilst that Parliament was going on., but it did not stay the use of the power; and I am afraid our security that the power will not be abused while it is possessed because there is to be an election a year after, or because there is discussion going on without, or because a vigilant Press is watching us, or any other reason of that kind, will not be of much use to us. We have all heard of the guillotine, the suppression of debate, and other things, in the House of Commons—painful evils which have grown upon us.
What is the real secret of the demoralisation against which accusations are brought so freely, but in which both sides are equally involved? Is it not the decay of the Parliamentary spirit? That is what we feel—that there is a decay of the Parliamentary spirit, through not recognising that there are others besides ourselves, the necessity of giving and taking, of compromise and conciliation, and that instead of that there is a perseverance and resolution to go on on the lines you have laid down. This decay has been fomented and strengthened by the great change which came upon us in 1886, and subsequent years. Let me refer you to what happened under two-Member constituencies with two candidates running, Liberals or Conservatives as the case may be, one an old-fashioned moderate Liberal and the other an advanced Liberal. They held their Party together and each felt the necessity of going one with the other, and so Liberalism by itself under that system had the bringing of two elements always into its own Party, and the same with the other side. But when you get an issue fought by one man and that issue supported by an organisation such as the Party caucus, you begin from the beginning, not in a temper of conciliation and cooperation, but in a temper of opposition, and that injures the Parliamentary spirit, which injury has been traced in Parliament since. Now what hangs upon this? The vision of debates and consultations and conciliation and I know not what processes before the two years are up, it is more or
138
less agreed we shall not have, and we shall be spared if after the first year we do not find introduced bald divisions and nothing more, and the affirmation at one stroke—quite easy to do—of the Bill passed in the previous session. Debates and conciliation, which my old friend Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman so sincerely hoped for, are things which von cannot be certain of realising. On the contrary, they are things which most probably will be put on one side, and this notion that after two years you will ripen into something by the rubbing together of thought and thought, it may be in the smoking room or elsewhere, is one which we cannot dwell upon as giving us sincere confidence.
Let me refer to the latest incident—I do it with regret—illustrating our Parliamentary decay. A Bill of tremendous moment, involving possibly the well being. of our whole industrial community, has been introduced into the House of Commons. Those who know, or at least who by previous study are entitled to speak with authority on the subject, affirm that that Bill contains proposals which, if not wisely handled, will lead to most lavish waste and the painful demoralisation of our industrial people. Whether that is a sound judgment or not I do not know, but it is put forward by responsible persons to whom you cannot but listen with respect. And this Bill, which took three years, according to its author, to frame, which has not been before the public three months, which has received the most casual discussion, because during those three months we have been engaged in many other things—this Bill it was proposed, before entering into Committee, to submit to a system of guillotine operations. That is what I call the latest, and perhaps the most painful, illustration of the decay of the Parliamentary spirit.
Does the proposal of the noble Marquess opposite give us any hope of finding an escape from this domination of what, after all, is not the will of the people? know the immense difficulties involved in its adoption, but, as I said before, I am not going to shrink from considering it because it is difficult, especially when I recognise the fact that the principle of the Referendum has been adopted in most of the democratic communities of the world and has made most rapid progress

139
amongst our own kinsmen and our own fellow-subjects overseas. I will not refer to the history of Switzerland and the. State Constitutions and Municipal Constitutions of the United States, but you will find that over and over again the Referendum is invoked in those countries in order to correct the miscarriage of ordinary legislative, action. Mr. Bryce, in his most valuable book to which we all refer much to our advantage, gives an abundant accumulation of evidence substantiating what I have said with regard to America. The principle of the Referendum ran, especially through the Western States, like wildfire as a means of correcting what had proved to be the miscarriage of legislation; and our own fellow-subjects in Australia, as I have already said, have embodied it in their Constitution. If it were adopted here it would be a slur, no doubt, on the House of Commons if it should turn out that the House of Commons had gone beyond the national will; but, after all, what we desire is that the nation at large should govern itself. It should be the electorate to whom we should look for the government of the nation. I do not mean to say that you will find the last word of truth in the decision of the electorate, but it is the best you can get. It is far better than that of this House—and having said that may I, without disrespect, say, far better also than that of the House of Commons. Though it would be a slow, almost unintelligent, turning over of considerations one way or the other which would be involved in bringing to the determination of a question the half-instructed opinion of the nation at large, yet you would, after all, get at something of the authority of a real determination. It is the determination by the mass of the nation, imperfect as it may be as a means of ascertaining the ultimate truth, by which we must be governed as we go on. Can it be introduced—I come back to that point again and again—without absolutely reconstructing this Bill?
There are two ways in which the Referendum can be invoked, or, at least, two ways have been suggested. One is by the institution of some special authority such as was proposed by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches and by the noble Viscount opposite—a Committee which shall determine. Another proposal was that involved in the Bill of Lord Balfour of Burleigh,
140
whose voice I wish we could hear in these Debates. On personal and public grounds it is a calamity that he is not here. In his Bill he proposes that a vote of this House, or a vote of an adequate minority in the House of Commons, should be able to bring about a Referendum. I am not sure whether something might not be done to combine these two methods of action, and if I were free to construct the process myself I should also proceed to amend the conditions under which the Referendum should be applied. The noble Marquess opposite proposes to make it apply necessarily in the case of the Protestant succession to the Throne, and in the case of what may be roughly called Home Rule legislation. The second provision I would myself remove altogether—the provision requiring that Home Rule should necessarily be submitted to a popular vote. I am not saying that Home Rule is not a very grave matter. It possibly ought to be submitted to a popular vote. But I should leave that question, if I had the construction of the Amendment, to the Committee or other authority or joint authority which will have to determine its application. Why not leave out these Constitutional changes, which you cannot define, when you have, through the operation of the proposed authority, a means of securing that if the case is sufficiently important there will be a reference? I say this in spite of all that has been said by the noble Marquess who has just sat down.
I think my noble friend below me would be amply justified in saying that at the last election Home Rule was specifically before the electorate. It was so, because those who opposed the present Bill pointed out most vigorously that Home Rule was in its train, and they did all they could to move the minds of the electorate to vote against candidates of the Government because those candidates were not only pledged to the Parliament Bill but to the Home Rule Bill that would follow. I therefore say, not presuming to prejudge the question here whether under a Reference to the people any particular scheme of Home Rule would be approved or not, that you cannot bring it out and say that by special exception and necessity it must be so referred. It should depend on the character of the Home Rule measure that is brought forward. If it involves some very great novelty which nobody had ever

141
heard of before, then undoubtedly the Committee, or whatever authority was invoked to determine the question, would hold that it should go to a reference. If it merely proceeded on old lines, then the warning to the nation was sufficient to preclude any presumption that they did not understand it. Then there may be other matters leading to the determination as to when the Referendum should be required, but you gain nothing by the insertion of those necessary references of Constitutional questions. You may have very important questions which are not there included, and you may bring in under that proviso as it stands questions of comparative insignificance. I think you may leave it to the class of cases to be considered by the authority. Now as to that Authority. Of the proposal of the noble Earl on the Cross Bench we shall no doubt hear from him a further explanation. To my surprise he has told us this evening that he adheres to the fourteen members of the Committee—
THE EARL OF CROMER: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I did not say I adhered to it.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I have not finished my sentence. If the noble Earl will permit me to finish he will then see whether I am right or not. I understood him to say that he adhered to the principle of the election of the fourteen members jointly.
THE EARL OF CROMER: The noble Lord is under a misapprehension. I did not say so.
LORD COURTNEY OF PENWITH: I am very glad to hear it is not so. Anyhow, fourteen, whether elected jointly or severally, seems to me too large a body to be entrusted with the difficult functions to be given to them; and even the more limited Committee of the noble Viscount opposite I would reduce by cutting out—I say it with all deference to the noble Earl presiding over us this evening—the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons and the Chairman of Committees here. I would have a Committee of four at the outside. I am a little doubtful about. the Lords of Appeal—I will let that pass however—but I would have a limited Committee of three or four at the outside. Further, I would not have them take action
142
unless upon a vote of this House or some appeal by a minority of the House of Commons such as is provided for in Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Bill. Under these conditions the process would still be one which may be described as a revolution. But I think under the conditions I have suggested the reference would only arise on rare and distant occasions when the gravity of the issue involved justified the reference being made. At all events I would have the proposal considered. I would like to have it considered as some way of getting out of what promises to be a very bitter controversy, involving issues we would all like to remove from our public life, and also a way of escaping from the real perils of a miscarriage of legislation such as I attempted to describe at the commencement of my speech, such as have occurred elsewhere, and such as would have occurred in Australia but for the existence of the Referendum there.
There are before the nation many large and extensive schemes of legislation. Some people are alarmed at what promises to be the taxation proposals of the future; some are afraid of the introduction of a large addition to our electorate, and no doubt I have bugbears and terrors of my own. I see also before us a large quantity of legislation of the most doubtful character which requires the most careful attention. Legislation, it has been said, proposes now to take care of us from our cradle to our grave. That is not enough, because some of the legislation which we have in front of us begins before the cradle is in existence. We have not quite got to the length of legislation laying down what men shall marry what women, but we have got pretty nearly as far as this—that certain men shall not marry certain women. Then there is the case of the children, the taking away of children from parental authority and control, the removal at the national or local expense of all destitution, and the physical and moral ill which arise from evil habits and evil traditions—the extent of these. proposals before us come under a name which was much abused centuries ago and which perhaps may be likely to be abused now—"benevolences." These "benevolences" threaten most seriously to interfere, not only with the self-respect, but with the absolute means of keeping together the industrial body of our nation as a, self-sustained and self-sufficing people. We, or those who come after us, will have

143
to be on the watch and to be very careful. For myself, I cannot but think that we should not reject any safeguard, however novel or strange, which might secure that. the legislation of the next generation shall go soberly and steadily forward according to the will and ascertained opinions of the mind of the nation at large; and, proceeding from experience to experience, so working out the future that it may be a worthy continuation of our past.
THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, the noble Marquess's Amendment deals with a great many grave matters besides the one that is commonly called Home Rule, and I have no doubt there are many in this House who will deal with those other matters in the noble Marquess's Amendment. I hope noble Lords in England will remember that what really touches us to the quick is the fact that a National Parliament, or Assembly, or a National Council, can be established in Ireland under this Bill without any reference to the people at all. We are often reminded, and we have been reminded by both noble Viscounts on the Government Front Bench, that it is because of our action with regard to referring the Budget to the people that we have the Parliament Bill brought. before us. But I think it is hardly fair upon us in Ireland that coupled with the Parliament Bill should be a pledge to the Nationalist Party that they are to have Home Rule. That pledge is as much part of the Bill as the Bill itself.
The noble Viscount said that the electors must be dupes if they did not understand that Home Rule was put before them at the last General Election. The noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, referred to many election addresses and speeches made by Government supporters and Ministers, in which the question of Home Rule was not mentioned in any way whatsoever. Then the noble Viscount referred to two speeches made by Lord Lansdowne, one in Scotland and one at Portsmouth. But the result of the election at Portsmouth was that a Unionist Member was returned, and I think we may congratulate ourselves that the reference to Home Rule which the noble Viscount tried to father on to the noble Marquess made us win the election at Portsmouth. Let us look for a moment at the history of the Home Rule question as dealt with by the Liberal Government.
144
In 1886 the Home Rule Bill which was then brought in was rejected by this House, and most deliberately rejected by the country. Then another Bill was brought in and passed in 1893. That was also thrown out by the Lords, and at the General Election the action of this House was fully justified. But there was another Bill that nobody has mentioned. That was another attempt of the Liberal Government to bring in Home Rule for Ireland. I am referring to the Councils Bill which was brought in by Mr. Birrell. What happened to that Bill? It was opposed by the Unionist Members most strongly in the House of Commons, and then there was a sort of informal National Parliament held in Dublin on the Bill. It was rejected there, and practically torn up and thrown in the face of the Minister who brought it forward. Yet, my Lords, with that experience before them the Government now try by an indirect means to force Home Rule upon us in Ireland. It is true there is to be some delay. What the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, said about that in his Second Reading speech I should like to mention. He said—
"I must again remind the House what the Bill [the Parliament Bill] does. The House of Commons has to pass a Bill three times; it is rejected here twice; two years must elapse; so there is no sudden flood tide."
Then he said that to suppose that a Home Rule Bill would go through those two years unchanged and unmodified would be really to show a curious ignorance of legislative conditions in this country.
But, my Lords, during that term of two years I do not suppose the question of Home Rule would be discussed at all. There might be some very important measure brought forward which would overshadow in the minds of the electors of Great Britain the question of Home Rule, and the Home Rule Bill might, so to speak, go into the background for a time. But those two years would gradually, but surely, elapse, and the Home Rule Bill would be imposed on the country by the Government, and could be imposed on the country under the terms of this Bill, without amendment, no matter what speeches had been made against it, and I do not suppose His Majesty's Government would take much notice of any disturbances or rows there were in Ireland during that time. That is what we feel in Ireland with regard to Home Rule. We have a most profound

145
mistrust of the Government upon this question, because we know perfectly well the coalition that exists between them and the Nationalist Party, and I begin to think, and a great many have begun to think, that but for the Nationalist Party forcing the hands of the Government we should not have hail this Parliament Bill brought up to us so soon, or it would not have been of such a very drastic character.
I am not going to abuse my fellow-countrymen the Nationalists, nor rake up the statements which have been made by them in America, Canada, and. Australia, and also, when it suits them, the conciliatory statements they make when they speak to the electors in this country; but I must point out this, that Mr. Redmond has said again and again in Ireland that his public policy was to make English government in Ireland dangerous, difficult, and impossible. I do not think noble Lords on the other side of the House will contradict that statement. And it is to this man and his followers that the management and the government of Irish affairs is to be handed over! That is not, to say the least of it, a pleasant prospect for us Unionists and loyal people in Ireland, and I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the one million Protestants in Ireland are, the great majority of them, entirely against the granting of any measure of Home Rule whatsoever.
There is another aspect of the Home Rule question to which I should like to draw the attention of the noble Viscount. I allude to the financial aspect. I am not going to say a word as to the financial relations between the two countries, as shown by the Royal Commission appointed by Mr. Gladstone. I admit that since that time we have had a great deal of money granted for different purposes in Ireland. I admit that we have had the Board of Agriculture, and technical education, and that money has been fully furnished. We have also had large sums of money to carry out the purchase of land in Ireland, and also for the compulsory suppression of congestion in the west of Ireland. But there has been a Committee recently appointed by the Government on this question, and what I complain of is that the Prime Minister has said that nothing will be known to us as to the findings of that Committee. Their sittings, I suppose, have been going on, but nothing
146
whatsoever is to be known. The only inkling that we have had about the matter was in a speech by Mr. Birrell. He said it would be a hard matter to fit in—speaking of the findings. I believe the words were, "It would be a very tight fit." I do not think that is satisfactory at all. In fact the Government are keeping the whole question of Home Rule in the dark as much as possible, because they know perfectly well that if this Bill is passed, which I hope it will not be, in its present state, they can slip it in with the greatest of ease and that it will be imposed upon us. I was glad the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, admitted, in his speech on the noble Marquess's Amendment, the enormous difficulties in the construction of a Home Rule Bill. I quite agree with him, and I think he will find that the enormous difficulties which will accrue will be the difficulties of finance, because, as the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, has pointed out, if the credit of this country is taken away from us I do not know at all how on earth any Home Rule Government is going to carry on.
Now I should like to say something as to the wish for Home Rule by Ireland at large. By Ireland at large I mean the majority of the population. I leave out altogether the million Protestants. I am sure noble Lords will remember that in Parnell's time the driving power behind the Home Rule question was the land question, and if he had not had the land question. behind him he would not have had the driving power he did have with regard to Home Rule. The land question is slowly—too slowly, alas! owing to Mr. Birrell's last Bill—being settled. I say without fear of contradiction that among the farmers and peasants who have bought their land and are now settled: upon their own property, so to speak, the wish for Home Rule, to put it as low as possible, is not nearly as keen as it was; and I can tell noble Lords that in my own part of Ireland if you were to hold a meeting there you would not get the large farmers and respectable tenants to come and listen to a man urging Home Rule. I say further—and I speak under correction from my noble friend beside me, Lord Clonbrock—that in the west of Ireland, where the purchase of land has been going on much more slowly and where the United Irish League is rampant, if you were to ask a farmer whether he would rather have Irish

147
Home Rule or his land, he would say, "I would rather have my land and be left alone to look after my own affairs, and not have politics interfere with me." That obtains in the part of Ireland in which I live perhaps more than it does in the West.
From a business point of view, what on earth do we gain by severing the bonds that tie us to this country? We are united to the greatest Empire the world has ever seen, and we are helped and financed by the richest Treasury that Empire has ever known. Individual Irishmen are taxed like individual Englishmen, but if Home Rule is imposed upon us and any part of the credit we now have by being attached to the British Treasury is withdrawn we should indeed be in a poor position. I ask noble Lords opposite, supposing we had Home Rule, who is going to lend Ireland a single penny of money to carry out any large public works, and where is she going to get the credit to borrow money? We are as determined as ever to oppose any form of Home Rule. I should like to allude to the statement the Lord Chancellor made—it was alluded to briefly by the noble Marquess—in his Second Reading speech on this Bill. He said—
"They know the policy of the Government involves Home Rule for Ireland; not only so, but I venture to say tint when that subject comes forward we shall find a very different tone and temper towards it from the country at large and from the Conservative Party than prevailed in the unhappy efforts which we made before. The younger members of the Conservative Party are largely in favour of some measure which may be fairly called Home Rule, and some of the more experienced and leading members of the Party are so too."
That is a starred speech. It has been revised by the Lord Chancellor. I can only say that I have met none of the younger members of the Conservative Party who are in favour of Home Rule, and I think it has been pretty clearly shown what the leaders of our Party think.
Ireland is perfectly peaceful and prosperous now; yet we are to be suddenly plunged into political turmoil, and God alone knows how it will end. The Government have refused every Amendment to this Bill. The noble Viscount has got up time after time and said the Government cannot accept this Amendment and that
148
Amendment. I feel that this is not the place to fight Home Rule, that England is not the place in which to fight it, and that resolutions and speeches are of no use whatsoever. But I do not intend, so far as I am personally concerned, to say anything more about Home Rule. I intend to go back quietly to Ireland and organise and prepare for the worst, not in the least hoping for the best, and to use arguments that I hope in the future will be somewhat stronger than amendments and resolutions. I think the noble Viscount knows and understands what I mean. There are many people in Ireland who are quite determined to resist the matter to the utmost. After all, that is a straightforward and fighting policy to take up, and it is one that will commend itself, I think, to the noble Marquess beside me, and to those who live in the North of Ireland. Ulster is pretty strong and determined yet, and those who live in the scattered parts in the South are going to help all they can to support Ulster in this old fight against separation from this country in any shape or form.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I have the honour to be an Irish landlord at the present moment—I hope not altogether an absentee one—and I can assure noble Lords behind me that I fully sympathise with them, and as far as I may be allowed to work in co-operation with them I shall do so to the best of my power. But I am anxious that any observations I make to your Lordships' House tonight shall be on the Bill before us as a whole, because I think it would be a misfortune if it went forth that the debate we are now carrying on was only a Home Rule debate. I only mention Home Rule in order to protest as strongly as I can against a doctrine which has been enunciated not for the first time in this House—the doctrine laid down by the noble Viscount opposite, that as the Opposition had given a certain amount of prominence to the Home Rule question it must therefore be assumed to have been before the electorate. It is perfectly true that we did refer to it on many occasions. I did myself—not altogether, I admit, very successfully—as I felt that I was to some extent put into a difficult position. I might recall that at a meeting which I held an interrupter got up, when I was referring to the question of Home Rule, and said—

149
"I have every reason to believe that you are not a particularly untruthful person, and I would ask you; Can you honestly say that the question of Home Rule is before us when not a Liberal candidate within miles of where you are sitting has mentioned it in his election address?"
I admit that was a very difficult argument to deal with, and the man himself—he was only an ordinary individual—afterwards told me—
"Yon know as well as I do that Home Rule has not really been placed before the country at this election. There are thousands of us who object strongly to your fiscal policy but who have a stronger objection still to Home Rule, and though we are going to vote for the present Government on account of your fiscal policy, if we thought for one moment that Home Rule was going to be put forward by them we should give our votes to you."
That, I have no doubt, was repeated in thousands of instances, and I take this opportunity of protesting most strongly against the doctrine that because the Opposition warned the country of the effects of legislation of this character that proves that Home Rule has been considered by the country at large.
I would like to make reference to a remarkable statement which fell from the noble Viscount in regard to subsection (a) of the Amendment of my noble friend. The Amendment, as your Lordships all know, affects the question of the Crown and the Protestant succession. The noble Viscount brought forward as a reason that it was not necessary to put this in the Bill, that no Parliament was ever likely to do such a thing in the future. That is an argument which we on this side cannot accept. We have to be prepared for every possible contingency or emergency that may occur, and, as noble Lords opposite never cease from reminding us we have now got fixed and stereotyped relations existing between the two Houses. This is not solely a question affecting the House of Lords. It affects the Commons; it affects the electorate of the country; and as such, particularly on a question affecting the existence of the Crown and the Protestant succession, we should be especially careful to avoid bringing the Sovereign's name in at all. The noble Viscount said, and of course historically and constitutionally we accept his authority—and I believe that constitutionally and historically he is correct—that it would be constitutional for the Sovereign to dismiss his Ministers on any question
150
affecting the Crown or affecting the succession. But to have had that used by a member of the present Government, which relies, or professes to rely on the deliberate opinion of the country—to say, "Our defence of the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession rests upon the possibility of the Sovereign himself taking action in this matter—
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: On advice.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I do not remember hearing the noble Viscount say "On advice."
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: Oh, yes.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If so, let me take up that interruption. The Government obviously must rely on the House of Commons, and if a Minister introduces a Bill affecting the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession is it possible to assume for one moment that the Sovereign's Ministers would give him advice contrary to that which they are giving to the House of Commons? It would be utterly impossible for a Minister to give advice of one character to the House of Commons and advise his Sovereign to the contrary. I venture to say that at this period of our history, having heard such a doctrine from such an authority as the noble Viscount, we have some right to make a protest against the exclusion of this subsection on the ground that it would be the prerogative of the Sovereign to be able to dismiss his Ministers and consult the people on the matter personally. After all, a fundamental difference exists between those on the Bench opposite and noble Lords on this side of the House. Noble Lords opposite appear to imagine that as soon as an individual is elected a member of the House of Commons he at once, and for all time he may serve there, is blessed with a species of superhuman ability. I trust that I shall never be one who would in any way speak disrespectfully of an institution in which I had the privilege and honour of serving and for which I have feelings of profound respect, but I do venture to say that noble Lords opposite are sometimes inclined to add too great a value to the mere fact that a man serves in the House of Commons.

151
The noble Viscount opposite constantly reminds us that we must not diminish the privileges of the House of Commons. As far as I am aware, no suggestion of that sort has ever been made from these Benches. Certainly there are many of us who would not hesitate for one moment to sever our connection with our Party if we thought that any such attack was made, or intended to be made, on the privileges of the House of Commons. What we are anxious to do is to be able to help and assist members of the House of Commons by furnishing them with the means and opportunity of gathering more directly than they can to-day what the direct opinion of the country is on these great subjects. We must all admit, I think with some feelings of alarm, that the efficiency of our Parliamentary machine is in considerable danger, and that it will be still more endangered by this Bill many of us feel certain. I am not now speaking of the efficiency of this House, but with reference to the House of Commons itself. The inevitable effect of this Bill being passed in anything like its present form will be to cram alt immense amount of legislation into the first two years of the existence of any Parliament.
Though it is not altogether germane to this Amendment, I confess I heard with some alarm last night the refusal of the Government to consider the Amendment which was moved by Lord Malmesbury with reference to the use of the closure and the guillotine and the various other methods which are commonly employed for the expedition of business in the House of Commons. Those methods will increase, I am confident, as the legislation grows during the first two years of a Parliament. We are bound to see much legislation hurried through in the first two years of any Parliament in order that it may be ready to comply with the provisions of this Bill. That makes it more necessary than ever that every effort should be made to obtain what is the well-considered verdict of the country upon many of these matters. Many of us welcome these proposals by which great Constitutional questions can be removed from the operation of this Bill, not because they are big Constitutional questions, but in order that they may be referred deliberately and seriatim to the judgment of the country, if it is so desired. But as a matter of fact the mere existence of this machinery would probably act in
152
the way of preventing Bills being introduced unless the Government had reason to believe that they would commend themselves to the majority of the country. As it is now, Bills not always very well considered and involving great issues are brought in and hurried through. Occasionally they are rejected by your Lordships' House, but often they are not. I sat for twenty days this session on a committee in order to attempt to ascertain what was the intention of Parliament in an Act which it passed twenty years ago. The Bill was hurried through to some extent, but, so far as we could find, there was no deliberate intention on the part of the Government of that day of creating the evils which subsequently arose out of it. That shows the inadvisability of hurried legislation, and I can only hope that the Government will hold out a helping hand and enable us to do something. not only to make this Bill more workable, but—and this is a matter to which we attach infinitely more importance—to improve the efficiency and the good working of the whole of our Parliamentary machine.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter to eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]
LORD FARNHAM: My Lords, the great hostility with which we Unionists in Ireland regard this Parliament Bill in its present form is largely caused by the fact that we look upon it simply as a machine created at the instigation of Mr. Redmond to ensure him securing Home Rule for Ireland without the will of the people first being expressed upon it. It is all very well for noble Lords opposite to continue to say that the opinion of the people was expressed on Home Rule at the last General Election, in spite of what has already been said by noble Lords on this side of the House. True it is that we did our best at the last General Election to try to show the people that Home Rule was in danger of being forced through by the present Government, but at the same time we found it very hard to make them believe that fact when there was no mention of Home Rule, as has already been said, in the election addresses of the Party of noble Lords opposite. We therefore welcome this Amendment of the noble Marquess, as it will at all events guard us against the very obvious injustice of having Home Rule forced upon us without

153
the people first being allowed to pronounce upon it, an event which we believe would bring disaster to our native country—disaster which would shake the very foundations on which the British Empire has been built.
So obvious, indeed, is this injustice of forcing Home Rule upon us and disfranchising the British electorate on the matter of Home Rule, and so unconstitutional, that I do not believe even the present Government would attempt to do it if they were their own masters in the matter, though as far as the Constitution is concerned it appears to me that the Government regard it very much in the same light as a small boy would regard a new watch—namely, as something to be pulled to pieces and broken up. But we know very well that they are not their own masters in the matter. We in Ireland know that our interests are being sacrificed and heavy burdens of taxation imposed upon us, simply that Mr. Redmond may be handed down to posterity as the man who obtained Home Rule for Ireland; and we know that he has every intention of seeing that the Government carry out his wishes in the matter. Mr. Redmond has been trying for some time past to smooth the path of the Government by allaying their fears and the fears of the British people. as to what would be the ultimate result of Home Rule. He has told them, and told the people in this country, that Home Rule means loyalty to the Crown, a strengthened Empire, and fair play and toleration to minorities. I have no doubt that it is very convenient for noble Lords opposite and their Party to believe these sentiments, as it soothes for the moment those fears which I believe they really possess at the bottom of their hearts as to the ultimate success of Home Rule. But it would be well for them to ascertain first if these sentiments are backed up by the people in Ireland whom Mr. Redmond and the Nationalist Party pretend to represent.
Mr. Redmond states that Home Rule means loyalty to the Crown. Yet it is a very curious fact that his own constituents in Waterford held a large meeting on May 21 to protest against the addresses of welcome which were being drawn up to be presented to His Majesty the King on his approaching visit to Ireland; and also we find in the speech of an Irish Member
154
of Parliament at a large demonstration held in Dublin on Coronation Day words to this effect—
"King George of England was a foreigner, and with his personality, if he had such a thing, no Nationalist was concerned."
The rest of his remarks I would particularly commend to noble Lords opposite, for I am sure they will appreciate them. He said—
"For them in Ireland he was only a figure-head of that guilty institution of clever and unscrupulous men called the British Government."
Again, Mr. Redmond spoke at Woodford on May 27 and said that Home Rule meant a closer union. "It is not a weakening," he said, "but a strengthening of the Empire." Yet we find that a significant resolution was proposed at a large meeting in Dublin, at which I may mention a letter of apology, or a. telegram I think it was, was read from no less a person than Mr. William Redmond. The resolution reads as follows—
"Resolved, that the right of Ireland to have government solely by the people of Ireland is inalienable, and that no man can fix a boundary to the progress of Ireland's Nationhood."
And yet Mr. Redmond declares that he is not a separatist! The resolution goes on—
"And further resolved, That we rejoice at the success of all sections of our fellow-countrymen in the United States to oppose any alliance between that country and Great Britain—a proposal equally inimical to the peace of the United States and the liberties of Ireland."
We find that resolution supported by a man called Dr. McCarten, who used these words—
"England's greatest enemy to-day was Germany, and Irishmen, if they were active enough, could have the co-operation of Germany if things developed as they were going at the present time."
Yet Home Rule means a closer union! It is not a weakening but a strengthening of the Empire! Just to complete that ceremony and to show how much closer the Union would be under Home Rule, they finished, as they have done so often recently, by burning the Union Jack.
I am sorry to weary your Lordships with quotations, but they are necessary to show how Mr. Redmond's remarks in this country are interpreted by the Home Rule party in Ireland. Mr. Redmond tells us—he is loud, in fact, in his protestations

155
—that Home Rule means fair-play and toleration to minorities. He is quite hurt when we in Ireland do not believe him, and yet at the same time he remains chairman of a League which is expressly organised to defy the forces of law and order in this country. That League tyrannises over and terrorises those peaceful and law-abiding citizens who prefer to obey the law of the land rather than to obey the law of the United Irish League. Mr. Redmond said—
"Let them ask for any legislative safeguards they like, and he would accept them."
Perhaps noble Lords opposite will notice that he does not think the people have any right to a say in the matter at all. It is Mr. Redmond alone who has the power to grant us these safeguards. There is only one safeguard that we in Ireland require, and that is the safeguard which we have at the present moment—namely, the Act of the Union. We have no intention of ever allowing ourselves to be separated from this country. Loyalty to the Throne, fair-play to minorities, and the strengthening of the Empire is what we are told Home Rule means. Yet we find a Major McBride, of South African fame, but who, mark you, at the present moment is a favourite protegé of the Redmondite Corporation of Dublin—we find him being received with loud applause by a large Nationalist gathering in Dublin when he declared—
"They should strike how they might and when they might against the Throne and the cursed British Empire, and for the freedom of Ireland."
Is it any wonder that we in Ireland decline to believe a man whose protestations are so inconsistently carried out by the Home Rule Party in Ireland? But most of all is Mr. Redmond anxious to try to persuade the people in this country that there is no Ulster question. I have noticed also that members of the Party opposite, whenever they did mention Home Rule on an election platform, which was but seldom, tried to dismiss the Ulster question by saying that the Ulster opposition was confined only to a small band of Orange bigots. I am an Ulster man and I am also an Orangeman, and I emphatically deny that Orangemen are either few in numbers or bigots.
The guiding principle of Orangeism is to uphold the civil and religious rights of
156
all men, irrespective of their party or their creed. But the greatest mistake that is made is to say that the opposition in Ireland is confined to Orangemen. Orangemen are doubtless there, well disciplined, well organised, and ready to perform any duties that may become necessary in the disastrous event of Home Rule ever becoming law. As regards the number of the Orangemen, I would like to say that perhaps the best way for noble Lords opposite and their Party to ascertain them would be for them to come over to Ireland on the coming July 12 and see for themselves the numbers of Orangemen at the various county meetings that will be held, and also see for themselves the completeness of their organisation and their stern determination never to have Home Rule. But the opposition to Home Rule in Ulster, and indeed all over Ireland, is of a far wider scope. It embraces all creeds and parties, who are now banding themselves together to show their determination not to allow Home Rule to become law, and in the event of its becoming law to resist it to the utmost of their power. This is rapidly being brought to light in the case of the public at large by the formation or the restarting of Unionist clubs in Ireland. Not only is it false to say that there is no Ulster question, but the Ulster question is as burning to-day as it ever has been in the past, and if one of the real reasons of the Government for opposing the Amendment of the noble Marquess is to smuggle a Home Rule Bill through Parliament without first consulting the electorate, then they will end in plunging a part of the United Kingdom into a state of turmoil, strife, and bloodshed, if not indeed an actual state of civil war.
These may be very serious sentiments to bring forward, but I am sure noble Lords who come from Ulster will support me when I say they are uttered in all solemnity and with some knowledge of the preparations which are now going quietly forward in Ulster to resist Home Rule, and, in the event of its becoming law, to refuse to acknowledge any Parliament which may be set up in College Green, or to obey its laws, or pay its taxes. My Lords, I will not detain you at any greater length, but I will say, in conclusion, that if the Government cannot cast off the yoke which now binds them and break away from the line which I am sure by this time they are very sorry to be toeing, they will

157
bring to pass a great national evil which will involve them in a disaster far greater to themselves than the one they are now trying to avert, of being turned out of office by 70 odd Irish votes which they have bought at so humiliating and so grave a price.
LORD FABER: My Lords, I listened this afternoon with very great interest indeed to the speech delivered by the noble Viscount who leads this House, a speech made in answer to the closely reasoned and very conciliatory speech of the noble Marquess who leads this side of the House. Perhaps what interested me most in the whole of the noble Viscount's speech was the answer he gave to that important question which was raised in the first paragraph of Lord Lansdowne's Amendment—I mean that paragraph which asks if the Crown and Prerogatives of the Crown are to be interfered with without an appeal to the people of this country. The answer the noble Viscount made to that question so far as I could gather it—and there is a good deal in it—was that if the people of this country have made up their minds on such a subject as that an agreement between the two Parties in this House would not be of much avail, because it would be swept away. The noble Viscount then went on to deprecate the possibility of such an idea being entertained by the present House of Commons and the people of this country. I confess at once that until the last few months I should have agreed thoroughly with the opinion expressed by the noble Viscount on that point. But lately I have taken the opportunity, in an educational sense, of reading some of the out-and-out Socialistic newspapers of the day. All I can say is that there are writings in them of a kind that I had no idea of at all, and if the noble Viscount can spare a little time to read those newspapers I venture to say he will be thunderstruck by some of the articles he will find in them. I hope he will endeavour to do so, because I tell him quite frankly that what I gathered came upon me in a new light altogether, and I have learnt a great deal since I began to read those newspapers. The noble Viscount's remarks lead me to wonder whether we do enough to try to educate the masses of this country. Are we to try to educate them, or are we trying to keep the people of this country quiet by what I would call a system of bribes and
158
doles? Are we resorting to the panis et circenses of the great Roman Empire of Old days? We all know what the result of that process was in those days, and if we rely on doles to the people I do not know what as a nation we shall become in the future.
The old-age pension system in a certain sense, and also the recently introduced national insurance scheme, may both be described as doles. Of course, there is a great deal of good, as well as a great deal that one must admire, both in the old-age pension system and in the newer insurance scheme. The blot on the old-age pension scheme, as was pointed out in this House when it was under discussion, is that it was not made contributory, and therefore to a great extent does away with thrift, because a man who is of a saving disposition up to the age of sixty is faced with the drawback that if he goes on saving up for another ten years he does not come in for the old-age pension given by the Government when a person reaches seventy years of age. It seems to me that lately we have been inclined to try to find out who are the saving people, the hard-working people, the people with brains, who by reason of their virtues and their industry have been able to amass a certain amount of money. We then in some degree proceed, by means of such things as Death Duties, Super-Tax, and so forth, to take away from people who have been hard-working all their lives some of their carefully accumulated means, and give that money to people who have not worked so hard, to people who have no brains, and in some cases—and I am glad of these—to people who are afflicted by misfortune. I am afraid, however, that the number of unfortunate people who benefit by the money taken away from the hard-working and saving members of the community is very few. Now that we are getting to the end, as it appears to me, of the possible doles, I should like to know what will happen when we have nothing more to offer. Shall we be at the top of that slippery slope that we sometimes hear of? When the people get on that slippery slope will their leaders, however daring they may be, however intelligent and however desirous of stopping a fall, be able to save them? I would point out that at any rate the history of nations does not teach us that they would be able to do so, and I am afraid if we rely upon doles and such

159
things instead of upon education we may get into a very parlous condition.
The next question the noble Marquess asked was that relating to the setting up of an Irish Parliament. Was the proposal of the Government to establish a separate Parliament for Ireland to be submitted to the people of this country before being passed into law? The noble Viscount took up the position that he did not think that was necessary, because in his opinion during the last two elections, at any rate, the Irish question had been fully before the constituencies. In the election at the beginning of the year 1910 I had the opportunity—an opportunity I was very glad to take—of attending some big mass meetings in some of the largest towns in Yorkshire, and I can say for certain that in January, 1910, the Irish question was not before the constituencies in the true sense. I cannot answer for the election at the end of the year 1910, because I did, not take much part in it, as I was not in good health at the time and was not able to do so. But I repeat that my experience was that at the beginning of 1910 the Irish question was not before the constituencies. I would ask the noble Viscount whether lie thinks that many of these big questions that come before us in Parliament are thoroughly understood by the constituencies. The ordinary voter is a man of few brains who has about 25 s. a week and several children to keep. He has not much room to think of anything but money and money's worth, which is food. He has not room for much patriotism and the higher politics. Let me put it in another way. Does the noble Viscount think, for instance, that the constituencies generally—and I would take voters from the highest to the lowest on this question—understand the true inwardness and importance of pensions?
We have heard all over the country from Mr. Lloyd George, who brought in the Old-Age Pensions Act, which I agree is a good Act, that the cost is £13,000,000. It is nothing of the sort. It is £13,000,000 per year, which is a very different thing, because it means, if capitalised, £400,000,000 at least. I very much doubt, if you were to put a straight question to 99 out of every 100 voters, whether they would understand the magnitude of the old-age pension scheme. They would
160
merely say that the cost was £13,000,000. When the ordinary man in the street speaks of the way in which all gilt-edged Stocks, Consols and so forth, are falling he does not appreciate that this is one of the great reasons for the decline. I say again that the cost is not £13,000,000, but £13,000,000 per year, and an annuity of £13,000,000 would cost about £450,000,000. It is such big schemes as these that upset the finances of the country. If the Insurance Bill introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is passed into law it may cost another £300,000,000 or £400,000,000 when put into proper shape. That would mean no less than £800,000,000 for those two schemes if we regard the cost in the light of an annuity purchase. This makes me wonder whether electors in this country, especially in big towns, where people are not so highly educated and have not an opportunity of learning these things, quite know what they are voting about. Is it fair to say that on a question such as Home Rule, and other questions equally interesting, they knew what they were voting for in the last two elections? I doubt it. It would be very much better if they had an opportunity of saying what their mind is about such a big question as Irish Home Rule.
The noble Viscount holds out no olive branch to us, and I am sorry for it. I am the more sorry because I fully believe he would like to do so, and I have always thought so. I know there are difficulties in the way of that. He dislikes the Committee that is to be proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, because he says—and I think he made a point there—that if we appoint a Committee and just at the time of a General Election the Committee comes into play, its opinion might override that of the electors who had just elected Members to Parliament. I think, from my point of view at any rate, there is something in that point. What I would say is this. It occurs to me that the Irish Bill is the crux of the question. If we knew what the Irish Bill which the Government intends to bring in would be, if we thought it was going to be a fair Bill, having regard on the one hand to the desire of Ireland for a certain amount of Home Rule, and, on the other hand, to the natural desire in this country not to give doles amounting to many millions of pounds a year to Ireland if they want to have a separate entity of their own, speaking for myself

161
alone I think we might come to a possible arrangement on the Irish question. If we came to an arrangement on the Irish question on fair lines we should then, to use a Yorkshire phrase, be "up against" the House of Lords question. We might very easily settle that by agreement between the two Parties, and then, and only then, should we escape from the one-Chamber government which is threatening us. One-Chamber government if it comes will last for some years at any rate, and from all points of view will bring nothing but disaster to this country.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: My Lords, in supporting the Amendment of the noble Marquess I wish to confine my remarks to that part of the question which deals with Home Rule, and I wish to add my protest to that of the noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, against the remark which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack the other day, that the opposition to Home Rule was weakening. So far as my knowledge goes, the opposition to Home Rule is growing in intensity day by day and hour by hour, certainly in Ireland, which, after all, is the country which is most concerned in the question. The opposition to Home Rule, I believe, arises from two factors. The first is the fear of religious persecution—fear which is not based on any hypothetical cases which may arise in the future, but on facts which have actually taken place in the past, which must be fresh in the memories of your Lordships, and which are certainly ever present to the minds of the Loyalists who live in Ireland. The other factor is the fear that those who assume the reins of government in Ireland under the Home Rule Bill will raise taxes which will be unjust and ruinous to the Loyalists and to the manufacturers.
Home Rule has not been a live interest of late years. Since 1893 it has not occupied a very prominent position on electioneering platforms, and if you do not talk to electors at election time about a subject which, perhaps, does not actually affect them at the moment, they are very apt to forget all about it. Since 1893, moreover, a new generation has arisen to whom Home Rule is practically unknown, and who do not understand the misery and the ruin which it would entail if it were introduced. But if Home Rule were made a clear issue again I am quite
162
sure that the result would be the same as it has always been, and that it would be rejected by the electors of this country. Therefore I think it is all the more important that Home Rule should be made a clear issue, and I must confess I would have preferred an Amendment which dealt with Home Rule alone and did not mix it up with other matters. That would have made it a perfectly clear issue before the electors. It would also have forced the Government's hand. It would have shown what was their real intention, which, I believe, is simply to use this Parliament Bill as a shield to home Rule. I regret, therefore, that we have not been able to do so. I understand that the Amendment which stands in the name of the, noble Marquess, Lord Londonderry, next to this on the Paper—
Page 2, line 33, after ("sessions") insert ("Provided further that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to a Bill to establish a separate Parliament and Executive for Ireland.")
is ruled out of order, and if that is the case I think it is all the more essential that some safeguard such as is provided in this Amendment should be introduced into this Bill. It would be very unjust to the electors of this country that any Home Rule at the present time should be rushed through, as I expect it would be under this Parliament Bill, before the electors of this country have had an opportunity of understanding what a Home Rule Bill would mean, and of studying and examining it. As I have said before, it is new to a great many of them, and it would be very unfair to Loyalists in Ireland, whose lives would not be worth living and whose property would be confiscated under a Home Rule Bill.
I do not believe this Parliament Bill would ever have seen the light of day if it had not been for Home Rule. Noble Lords opposite are never weary of telling your Lordships that the real reason for this Parliament Bill is that your Lordships had the temerity to refer the Budget of 1909 to the electors. They are always ready to talk about the will of the people, and yet somehow or other when an attempt is made to put it into practice they seem to take rather a different view of the matter. But, of course, His Majesty's Government are not their own masters. They cannot do what they want, and they are hampered by their own supporters. Who, my Lords, are the real obstructionists of their policy,

163
and who have been for years the true obstructionists of Liberal legislation?—not your Lordships' House but the Nationalist Members of Parliament, these so-called supporters who must be satisfied one way or another, and the one way by which His Majesty's Government propose to satisfy them to-day is by giving them a Home Rule Measure. In 1909 His Majesty's Government found themselves in the same predicament. They had to placate another section of their supporters, and in deference to the wishes and demands of the Labour Party they passed the Budget of 1909. To-day they propose to placate another section of their Party by passing a Home Rule Bill, and this Parliament Bill, my Lords, I believe to be nothing more or less than a cloak to Home Rule.
I would like to ask His Majesty's Government a question with reference to the subject of taxes in Ireland—namely, how they propose to improve the present state of prosperity in Ireland. Where is the money to come from? They can only raise taxes in the country, and the field of taxation is, after all, a very limited one. They can either tax a few people who have got a certain amount of money in the country, or the manufacturers. That must come to a very speedy end. Do His Majesty's Government propose that under a Home Rule measure they should empower a Home Rule Government to institute a tariff between Ireland and England? I do not see how they are going to raise their money in Ireland. The manufacturers would soon be ruined by extra taxation, and if they propose to allow a tariff to be raised, that tariff would very soon kill every industry in Ireland. It would be very interesting if His Majesty's Government would enlighten us in any way as to how this question of finance is to be carried out. Is the whole of the onus of taxation to be thrown on the English taxpayer? It is commonly said that it would cost the taxpayer another 3½ millions sterling a year to carry through a Home Rule Bill, and, there is a rumour that it would cost 6¼ or 6½ millions sterling, which capitalised is a sum of 200 millions. Is that what it is to cost to placate one section of His Majesty's Government's supporters in another place? It would be very interesting if we could be informed on this matter. After all, it has a direct bearing on the question, not only so far as people in Ireland are concerned, but so
164
far as people in this country are concerned. I think that if they pass this Parliament Bill His Majesty's Government will be in a fair way to ruin Ireland, just as they are at the present moment in a fair way to ruin England by their Budget of 1909.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: My Lords, in his address this evening the noble Viscount who leads the Government in this House stated that no member of your Lordships' House was in a position to speak for the great majority of the people of Ireland. I believe the noble Viscount meant that no member of your Lordships' House was qualified by his previous political experience and knowledge of affairs to assume that position.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord is entirely in error. I never said that nobody in the House was better qualified than I am to speak for the people of Ireland, or knew more of them. What. I said, and adhere to, is that nobody knows better than I do, and has had better opportunity of knowing, the difficulty of constructing a Home Rule Bill.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I think the noble Viscount is labouring under a misapprehension of what I say. I understand the noble Viscount to have said that no member of your Lordships' House was competent, from political experience and knowledge of Ireland, to represent properly the feelings of the majority of the Irish people.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I never said anything of the kind.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I must then beg the noble Viscount's pardon. I was going on to say that I could claim no such qualification to speak for the people of Ireland, but that I am an Irishman by birth, by extraction, and by sympathy, that I have had in recent years much experience of Irish affairs, and that I think these credentials entitle me to speak on behalf of my fellow-countrymen and my co-religionists on this important matter. I feel at the same time that I am trespassing upon your Lordships' indulgence because I have a consciousness that, according to the strict rules of order, I am not entitled to address you in the way that I propose to do; but as the noble Marquess, Lord

165
Londonderry, has made what one might call a Second Reading speech on a Home Rule Bill, and has given forth to the country his special views upon the Irish question, I feel myself bound to take the earliest opportunity available of explaining what my views are upon these points.
The noble Marquess began his speech—at all events I shall venture to take up this point first—with an estimate of the character of the Irish Parliament, and he quoted Lecky with the object of showing that that Parliament fulfilled none of the objects or purposes which a Parliament Wright be expected to fulfil. I was greatly astonished that any noble Lord should venture to pass such a criticism on Grattan's Parliament as we have heard to-night from the noble Marquess, because the facts of history are patent, and since the publication of Lecky's great book they are known to a very large audience indeed. May I read from the second volume one or two extracts which will show the noble Marquess bow utterly mistaken he has been in his appreciation of that Parliament. In regard to law and order, which the noble Marquess stated were not preserved in those days, I find on page 493 the following passage—
"The roads,' said one traveller, are almost invariably excellent. The inns are furnished with every accommodation that a traveller not too fastidious can require. … Travelling is perfectly secure. … Footpads, robberies, and highwaymen are seldom heard of except in the vicinity of Dublin.' The splendour of the capital was indeed out of all proportion to the wealth of the country; but it at the same time indicated clearly an increasing industrial activity."
Lecky goes on to state—page 494—the condition of things at that time—
"In 1790 Sir John Parnell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated in Parliament that it was his pride and his happiness to declare that he did not think it possible for any nation to have improved more in her circumstances since 1784.'"
That was said in 1790, during the time of the Irish Parliament; and further on I find that Lord Clare is quoted as having made these remarks—
"I am bold to say there is not a nation on the habitable globe which has advanced in cultivation and commerce, in agriculture and in manufactures, with the same rapidity in the same period."
And the last quotation I will give is a statement made by Cooke, who was the Under-Secretary of the time, of the Union. This is what he said—
166
"What is meant by a firm and steady administration? Does it Imam such an administration as tends to the increase of the nation in population; its advancement in agriculture, in manufactures, in wealth, and prosperity? If that is intended, we have had the experience of it these twenty years; for it is universally admitted that no country in the world has made such rapid advances as Ireland has done in these respects."
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: May I ask the noble Lord whether there were no less than 54 Coercion Bills passed in that time?
LORD MACDONNELL OF SWINFORD: Those are details I have had no opportunity to look up. I have only had a slight opportunity since the adjournment of looking up the subject; but if on matters on which the noble Marquess has made certain definite statements I find, on the authority of Lecky, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Under-Secretary of the day, that those statements are not accurate, I think I may fairly infer that if I were able to make further inquiries I should find more inaccuracies in the noble Marquess's statements.
THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: The noble Lord has not replied to my query whether there were not 54 Coercion Bills.
LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD: I am unable to reply, but I will make inquiries on the point, and I have no doubt I shall find some inaccuracy in the noble Marquess's statement. I now come to the question of finance. The noble Marquess has stated that a Parliament could not be run in Ireland because Ireland is in a bankrupt condition. What authority has he for saving that? The only authority he can appeal to are the financial figures produced by the Treasury. These figures show that two or three years ago the Irish revenue collected in Ireland was 11¼ millions, while the expenditure in Ireland was well under 10 millions. During the last two or three years, as we all know, certain irregularities have occurred in the collection of the revenues owing to the rejection of the Budget by your Lordships' House. Within the last two years there has been shown in the statements of the Treasury a certain deficit, but that matter is now under inquiry by the Committee appointed to look into the matter, and the conclusions of that Committee should not be forestalled or anticipated by any statements one way or the other. If I were to hazard

167
a statement I should be inclined to say that it will be found by careful inquiry that the income and the expenditure of Ireland, even taking into account the payment of old age pensions, would come out about equal.
But, my Lords, I take this point of view in Irish finance. Under the Act amalgamating the two Treasuries, the taxation and the expenditure in Ireland were made indiscriminate—that is to say, taxation was to be at the same rate as in Great Britain, while there was to be no restriction of Irish expenditure to Irish revenue. Irish expenditure was to be regulated, not in accordance with the income from Irish taxation, but in accordance with the necessities of the Irish situation. Under the Act uniting the two Treasuries Ireland is entitled, if the necessity of her situation requires, to have, let us say, 12 millions spent upon her, even though only 9 millions or S millions is collected from her. From the time of the Union of the two Treasuries up to the present time the collection of revenue from Ireland has been, roughly, about 550 millions sterling. Of that amount more than one-half has been contributed to England, and less than one-half has been spent upon Ireland. Those figures show that, even if Ireland was in deficit at the present time, regard should be had to the amount she had contributed to Great Britain, and the deficit should be made up with no degree of stinginess. The noble Lord referred to the great increase of deposits in Irish savings' banks. There is another aspect to that matter. Has the noble Lord ever asked himself why is it that the deposits in savings' banks have increased so enormously, while the interest paid upon those deposits is only two or two and a-half per cent. Does it not suggest that there is in the minds of the Irish people some suspicion or mistrust attaching to the existing Irish Government. Does it not suggest that if another method of administration were introduced in Ireland that money would be invested in more paying securities? That, at all events, is the view which I take of the situation.
But there is another aspect of the debate to-night. We have heard a good deal of the "loyal minority," and we have heard a good deal of the oppression and the spoliation to which the "loyal minority" would be exposed in case Home Rule were introduced in Ireland. The "loyal
168
minority" suggests that there must be a disloyal majority, and underlying the speeches I have heard to-night three principles were apparent. One is that the majority in Ireland are disloyal to the Throne; the second is that if the majority were in power they would oppress and despoil the minority; and the third, which some noble Lords have suggested rather than uttered, is that Irishmen do not want Home Rule as much as they did. Now, my Lords, not one statement has been made to-night which was not based on one or others of these principles. Not one other argument has been used, unless indeed we may count as an argument the aspersions which noble Lords have thrown so freely to-night upon the Irish political loaders. This last argument I may clear out of my way by saying that in all great political movements history takes small account of the criticisms of political partisans upon their political opponents, and I do not think on this occasion I need forestall or anticipate the verdict of history upon that matter.
In regard to the argument that the Irish majority are disloyal to the Throne, I respectfully submit to this House the following considerations. In recent years the veil which had hung for so long over the true facts of Irish history has been largely withdrawn, and one can now see more clearly than before what is true and what is false. From that fuller knowledge I venture to affirm that after the early days of the Plantagenet dynasty—certainly after it had ceased—the Irish people as a people never revolted against their English King, although they frequently revolted against the executants of his Government in Ireland. There is no more severe critic of the Irish and of Ireland than Froude, and this is what he says about Irish resistance to Dublin Castle Rule up to the end of the 17th Century—
"If the Irish were left with their lands, their laws, and their creed, their chiefs were willing to acknowledge their English Sovereign; the Irish were not to be blamed if they looked to the Pope, to Spain, to France, to any friend on earth or in heaven to deliver them from a power which discharged no single duty that rulers owe to their subjects."
That is Froude's judgment on English domination in Ireland up to the 17th century, and that judgment is confirmed by Edmund Burke in his letter to Sir Hercules Langreshe. Coming to later times, the impartial and well-informed Lecky

169
tells us that this general charge of disloyalty was not true in the 18th century, and not even true in 1798, when parts of Ireland rose in rebellion.
My Lords, the Irish were loyal to Charles I. They were loyal to James II, although he was personally not very deserving of their loyalty. They were loyal to the House of Hanover. This is what Lecky says about their loyalty at that time—
"More than eighty years had now passed by since any act of rebellion or conspiracy or political turbulence had been proved against Catholics in Ireland. They had maintained an absolute, unbroken tranquillity during the Scotch rebellion of 1715, during the expedition organised against the house of Hanover by Alberoni in 1719, during tile great rebellion of 1745, during the long and desperate war that terminated in 1763, and amid all the complications that had since arisen."
The next King who came to Ireland was George IV, and him the Irish received in a manner which we all know. Coming to our own days, do we not remember the affectionate greeting which was given to Queen Victoria when, after a period of 50 years, she visited Ireland, which had greatly longed for her presence before? And those who among us witnessed the reception given to King Edward and Queen Alexandra, not only in the great centres of population, but in the remotest districts of Connaught, could not fail to perceive that the Irish people were loyal to their King. I have to ask your Lordships' pardon for inflicting these details upon you, but when I find reference made by noble Lords to the "loyal minority" I wish once for all to point out that the suggestion that there is a disloyal majority is not true or in accordance with the facts of history.
I pass on to the second point—namely, that the Irish Roman Catholics would oppress the minority if they had the power. The only occasion on which the Irish majority had power and control in Ireland was in the reign of James II during the Parliament of 1689. I can only appeal to Lecky, who gives an impartial and fair account of how the Irish Roman Catholic Members of that Parliament acted, for proof that religious animosity and racial antagonism have no great influence over the Irish race. The animosities of the seventeenth century are now a distant memory. The root and foundation of the quarrel between England and Ireland was the oppression associated with the occupation of land. From the
170
beginning of England's connection with Ireland down to the present time, the entire stream of Irish discontent can be traced to that one source. No attempt was ever made to remedy Irish grievances on that point until the Government of Mr. Gladstone in 1870 took the matter in hand, and since then I am glad to say there has been a gradual improvement. The principles of land settlement have been laid down, and although those principles are being very slowly carried into practice, they must work out to their ultimate conclusion; and that being so, I submit that statesmanship mid commonsense dictate that the Protestants and Catholics should be no longer kept apart, but that they should be allowed in co-operation with each other to learn those lessons of self respect, self-reliance, and toleration which one is so competent to teach the other.
I find, from my experience of Irish life, no substantial reason for the fear which noble Lords express that the majority would oppress or despoil the minority. It is a remarkable circumstance that these expressions of fear do not come from those provinces in which the Catholics are in a vast majority, but we always hear them from Ulster, in which the Catholic and the Protestant populations are nearly equal. The fear, where it exists, I trace in my own mind to a sort of consciousness that the harsh treatment which Roman Catholics received in the past might impel Roman Catholics in the present to acts of retribution. That I think is bad psychology. But it goes against self-interest. I believe that the line of cleavage in an Assembly in College Green would be entirely different from a religious line of cleavage, and that it would follow a very much more healthy and beneficial line. And I believe that this would be greatly promoted if, by a system of proportional representation, all parties in every province were enabled at the polls to make their voices effectively heard.
No one is more ready than I am to admit the great advantages that have come from remedial legislation, and I admit that the Irish people have been drawn closer to England by such Acts as the Local Government and the Agricultural Departmental Acts, the Act of 1903, the Old Age Pensions Act, the Labourers' Cottages Act, and the University Act. But noble Lords completely misrepresent the Irish nature and the facts of Irish life when they assert that the

171
ill-treatment and the misrule of centuries can be removed by a few well-considered measures of law. Those noble Lords are mistaken who can bring themselves to believe that the Irish people's natural desire for self-government is weakened because tardy justice has been done on a few points. Have those noble Lords seen the Irish Registrar-General's last Report? And if they have, do they fully realise the unspeakable tragedy that underlies these words which I quote from that Report—
"The Returns as quoted and published show that the total number of emigrants, natives of Ireland, who left Irish ports from May 1st, 1855, to the end of December, 1910, amount in the aggregate to 4,187,443."
That is a number all but equal to the entire population of the island at the present time.
What will be the verdict of history on an Administration which has such a horrible result as that to show? In vain will you search the pages of history, ancient or modern, for such a result of British or any other administration. And the irony of the situation is this, that noble Lords opposite, the representatives of the "English Garrison," who have carried out that system now come and ask England for an extension of the life of the system which has had such a result. My Lords, I pray that the answer of England will be, "Cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground?"
No, my Lords, we know far too much of the Irish administration to weaken in the least degree in our desire for the self-government which now, at long last, seems to be within our reach. I cannot speak for the Irish Parliamentary Party, whom I regard with much sympathy, but whose counsels I have never shared. And perhaps the reason is that I, wishing to benefit Ireland no less than they have looked at this question from the Imperial point of view, from the outside, while they, who have borne the heat and the burden of the day, naturally look at it from the Irish point of view, as it was most natural they should. But now I am disposed to think that we are not so far apart, that in essentials we agree, while I know perfectly well that I am in general agreement with a great body of men—Nationalists and Unionists, Ulstermen, and men from the other three provinces, Catholics and Protestants—who wish to see this question settled in a fair and reasonable way. And in this connection I welcome more than I can say the expression of opinion from such an authority as the noble Lord, Lord Faber, that such a
172
settlement should be considered as one way of approaching the solution of our Constitutional difficulties. While we admit the excellence of some recent laws, we affirm that these laws are not being carried out with the sympathy with which they would be if we ourselves had the control. We challenge the entire fabric of Irish government—that "old-fashioned and complicated organisation," as the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition described it in this House in February, 1905, and an organisation such that, if any of your free Colonies were subjected to it, they would rebel in a year. We know that attention is not paid to questions which intimately concern the well-being of our people. We know that money is being mis-spent while there is a multiplicity of objects on which it could be well spent. We know that our people's children are being badly educated while their fellow children in Great Britain are being well educated. We know also that there is a vast reserve of administrative ability among us which is lying at present untapped and turned to no account. We object to being dragooned by English Departments on matters where our own knowledge is greater than theirs, and our ability to turn that knowledge to use is no less than theirs. We do not ask for the repeal of the Union, nor do we ask for the control or management of, or interference with, any service which is concerned with great affairs of State, or with matters touching the three kingdoms. That we willingly leave to the Imperial Parliament, in which we only ask to be fairly represented as we shall continue to bear our share in all Imperial taxation; and speaking personally for myself, I am willing that Irish finance should be connected with the finance of the Empire in the same intimate and dependent way as the finance of an Indian Province with that of the Indian Empire.
We offer all reasonable guarantees to the minority over and above what I should regard as already sufficient—the guarantee of this all-controlling and predominant Parliament. We maintain that it is in the interests of the Imperial Parliament, which is overweighted with business with which it cannot deal, that the performance of purely local Irish business should devolve upon a subordinate Irish Legislature, which alone can gee to its due performance, and to which, I infer from subsection (b) of the Amendment of the noble Marquess, he would not object if only legislative functions were withheld

173
from it. If I am right in that inference, may perhaps say, in passing that I do not envy the reflections of those who wrecked the Irish Council Bill, because we Irishmen would be in a very different position in Parliament to-day if we could show three years' successful work under that Bill as a reason for giving us larger powers. But, however that may be, we see no reason or justice in your denying to us those opportunities of bettering ourselves which you have granted to the component provinces of the Overseas Dominions. Finally, we think that in the concession of our demand, a demand which is approved by the Parliaments of the Overseas Dominions, in extolling whose good sense and political wisdom you have this last few weeks exhausted the language of praise, will be found, not only a reconciliation of two peoples already too long estranged by evil counsels, but an abatement of Irish hostility abroad and the consolidation and the strengthening of our Empire at home.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just sat down will acquit me of any disrespect for him or his somewhat impassioned argument if I ask leave of your Lordships to recall the debate to the rather larger ground upon which it started this afternoon. At the commencement of our proceedings the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition, in a speech which I venture to think for lucidity and moderation and persuasiveness even the noble Marquess has seldom surpassed in this House, submitted certain proposals to your Lordships. Those proposals were made after full consultation with those who usually act with him, and I believe they represent the sense of the large majority of those who sit on this side of the House. They were suggestions to meet dangers by which, if the Bill of his Majesty's Government should become law, we feel this country would be confronted—the danger for instance, that measures of first-class importance may be passed by the present majority, or in future by any majority in the House of Commons, behind the back and without the approval of the people of the country. The noble Marquess is not the only speaker who has called attention to that danger. I am very sorry that I was not fortunate enough to hear the speech of Lord Courtney this afternoon. It was a, remarkable speech, I am told, which might very properly
174
give cause for thought to the occupants of the Front Ministerial Bench. No one is more distinguished for his staunch Liberalism than Lord Courtney, or more willing as a rule to find reasons for supporting His Majesty's advisers, and yet I am told that he described the danger to which have been alluding as grave, and that he said the need for precaution was great. And if such words can emanate from such an authority as Lord Courtney, they at least are worthy of serious and sober attention from those who are forcing through this measure.
When the noble Marquess resumed his scat we had a speech from the noble Viscount, Lord Morley. I hope I am not speaking disrespectfully of that speech if I say that it appeared to me to leave the main argument of the noble Marquess altogether untouched, that it was weak and inconclusive in its criticism of details, and that in its final passages it was obdurate in temper, although it never failed in courtesy of tone. If we had in this country the practice which prevails in France and certain other foreign countries of printing public speeches and placarding them on hoardings, so that they may be read by the electors, I could wish for nothing better than that the speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and the reply of the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, should be so treated and placed side by side.
Now, may I briefly take the propositions of the noble Marquess and the replies given to them by the noble Viscount. The first proposition of the noble Marquess was that any Bill which affects the existence of the Crown or the Protestant succession thereto should not be passed without reference to the people. The justification of such a proposal was obvious. It is this. It rests on the doctrine which all of us willingly agree to, that the Monarchy in this country reposes in the last resort upon the will of the people; that it ought to be surrounded with the fullest securities you can devise; and that no better security can be o provided in the future as in the past than the confidence and support of the majority of the electors. One would have thought that the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, would have found no difficulty in accepting this proposition. He had not a word to say against it, it is true, but all he said was that the House of Commons was not less devoted to the

175
Throne than your Lordships, and that he could not imagine any House of Commons indulging in legislation such as that alluded to in this Amendment. Nor can I at the present time. But, after all, are not noble Lords opposite always telling us that we are legislating now, not for the immediate or present but for the distant future—that they are putting permanent features into the Constitution of this country.
While I am fully prepared to agree with what the noble Viscount said about the existing House of Commons, I cannot forget that there is in existence a powerful body—the Social Democratic Federation—not without representatives in the House of Commons, the main plank of whose platform is the abolition of the Monarchy. I cannot help remembering also that there is an hon. Member in that House possessed o of considerable influence in the country who has said, as recently as during the past year, that he regarded the existence of the Monarchy as a proof of lunacy among the people; and only the other day, with reference to these proposals with regard to your Lordships' House, the same hon. Member—I am referring to Mr. Keir Hardie—said:
"When coronets go into the melting-pot the Crown bad better beware."
No doubt a foolish and demented utterance, but still it was the utterance of a man not without influence and not without a great following in many parts of the country. And, moreover, in reading the debates quite recently in the House of Commons, I noticed that when a speaker on the Unionist side alluded to the possibility that a majority might wish to abolish the Monarchy in the future, the remark was greeted with a "Hear, hear" from one or more of the Labour Members. Therefore I would not be quite so confident as the noble Viscount about the House of Commons. We all of us wish to safeguard the Throne, and I should have thought there would be no difficulty in acceding to this portion of the noble Marquess's Amendment, because, after all, the only safeguard of the Throne is the assurance of the support of the majority of the people of this country.
The second proposal of the noble Marquess was that no Home Rule Bill for Ireland or for any other portion of the United Kingdom should be passed unless
176
it was certain that it was demanded by a majority of the people. The noble Marquess pointed out that on the two last occasions when a Home Rule Bill had been before the country it had been rejected. He challenged the Government to say that Home Rule had been as a main issue before the country at the last election, and he definitely disputed the contention that a vote had been given in its favour. What was the reply of the noble Viscount to that? In the first place, he argued that Home Rule had been before the country, and, by a strange method, quoted from a speech of the noble Marquess himself. No doubt it was a great compliment to the noble Marquess to be told that he decides the issues that are to be placed before the country at a General Election by the Government, and we welcome it on that account, though we regret that the people did not attach more importance to the utterances of the noble Marquess. But we attach greater weight to what we find in the speeches and in the election addresses of members of His Majesty's Government. When we recall the fact that in, I believe, only eighty-three election addresses of Liberal Members of Parliament was any mention of Home Rule made, that it was absent from the address of the Prime Minister, from that of the Home Secretary, who seldom omits anything that is likely to be attended by personal or Party advantage, and, mirabile dictu, absent from the address of the Irish Secretary himself, who might reasonably be supposed to take at any rate a passing interest in the subject—when we remember that Home Rule was conspicuous by its absence from the addresses of all these gentlemen, I think it becomes impossible to argue that it was, in any fair use of the term, a main issue before the country.
The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, then went on to an argument which, with all respect, I thought more extraordinary still. He said there was a particularly good reason why your Lordships should not be allowed any voice in any future settlement of this matter, and that reason was that the policy of this House had been one of passion and prejudice in regard to the Irish people, and that we have in the past thrown out so many measures for their relief. I need hardly call your Lordships' attention to the hopeless irrelevance of this remark to start with.

177
What has it got to do with the question whether in the year 1914—because that would be the date—home Rule shall or stall not be referred to the electorate before it becomes the law of the land? Obviously there is no connection whatever between the two situations. I submit to your Lordships that it is not only irrelevant but invidious and untrue. This House is not the only House of Parliament that has refused measures put forward for the relief of Ireland. The House of Commons has been particeps criminis with us, if, indeed, there has been a crime. How often were measures for Catholic emancipation and other proposals subsequently passed into law refused in the House of Commons before they came to this House? Indeed, looking at the record of this House, I should feel disposed to take the very opposite line, and to say, having regard to the natural prepossessions of your Lordships, that you have been distinguished in a remarkable degree by the abnegation with which on many occasions you have been willing to pass measures extremely distasteful to yourselves because you felt that they had been required in higher interests than your own. I recall only last year an. Irish Land Bill which was most seriously disapproved of and dissented from by many noble Lords from Ireland, but we placed it on the Statute Book because we were told that a measure of that sort was demanded by the representatives of Ireland and should not be kept off the Statute Book by any action of ours. I do not think, therefore, in a retrospect of the past, that this House has any particular cause for self reproach as regards Ireland.
It is true that on one occasion we did thwart what were alleged to be the wishes of Ireland, but that is a case to which the noble Viscount, purposely perhaps, did not refer. That was the occasion on which we rejected a Bill introduced by the noble Viscount himself, conferring Home Rule on Ireland, and nobody who remembers the cheering crowds in Palace-yard and Parliament-square when that decision was given out and the reception that that vote met with in the papers the next day will accuse the House of Lords of having on that occasion stood in the way of the wishes of the great majority of the people of this country. Yet the argument of the noble Viscount with regard to Home Rule had great value, if I may be permitted to say so, in one respect, when he contended—
178
whether on account of your prepossessions or prejudices or not—that you had no right to have any voice in the future settlement of the Irish question, for was he not making the most frank admission we have yet had that this is a system of single-Chamber government which the Government are setting up? Therefore we now know that Home Rule is intended to be carried without the intervention of your Lordships' House.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: The noble Lord is pressing the point a great deal too far. The point was that this House is reserving to itself special powers of Referendum in respect of Ireland.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I will come in a moment to the point about this House reserving to itself special powers of Referendum in respect of Ireland, because I shall presently contend that the power proposed to be reserved to the Joint Committee is not a power reserved to this House, and that it is a travesty to so describe it. I do not want to misrepresent the noble Viscount, and I am glad he disclaims the interpretation which I have, no doubt erroneously, placed upon his observations, but I thought he meant that your Lordships were disabled by your past history from having a fair right to speak on a Home Rule Bill should it come up to the Second Chamber. I am glad to know that the noble Viscount does not mean that, and I will gladly pass on to another portion of his remarks.
The noble Viscount reserved his chief batteries for the main proposal of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne—namely, the proposal that a Joint Committee or a tribunal shall be set up, to which shall be referred the question whether the particular subjects specified in Lord Lansdowne's Amendment shall or shall not go for their final decision to a poll of the people. Now, what is the proposition of the noble Marquess? It is this, that to meet the certain dangers of a period of single-Chamber government the Referendum, as it is vulgarly called, should be applied in a very limited number of cases, and he proposes a tribunal to decide the question whether certain measures are or are not of the character specified. There are two proposals before us for the constitution of such a Committee. There is the proposal of the noble Earl, Lord

179
Cromer, who originally suggested that the Committee should consist of fourteen gentlemen, seven from each House of Parliament. Then there is the proposal of Viscount St. Aldwyn for a smaller Committee, what I may call a more official and a less political and less partisan Committee, consisting of six persons, three from each House with the Speaker in the Chair. If I may at this stage express a personal preference, I think I should be inclined to-day to support the noble Viscount's Committee, but I bind nobody but myself in saving that, and I recall that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, said that he held himself quite free, when at a later stage we come to Lord Cromer's Amendment, to consider in favour of which he would be disposed to vote.
But let me suppose for a moment that a Committee on the lines of the proposal of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, was constituted. It would, as I have said, consist of six persons three from each House—with the Speaker presiding. Under the present conditions it would consist of two open supporters of the Government, one open supporter of the Opposition, two neutrals, and one gentleman, who might belong to either party, nominated from the House of Commons by the Speaker. It is impossible to say that such a tribunal as that is otherwise than an impartial tribunal, and in any case it is not true to say that the dice would be loaded in the interests of your Lordships' House, for, if anything, the balance would tend rather in the opposite direction. Thus, if you have a Committee constituted like this you have a tribunal which would represent equally and impartially both Houses of Parliament. The House of Lords would not be in a majority upon it, nor, ostensibly, would the House of Commons, but the advantage would be given to that House because the Speaker who obviously carries an authority greater than any other man that would be upon it, would have two votes—his own and, in the event of an equal Division, a casting vote as well. What I am trying to do is to paint the Committee as my noble friend would call it into existence, and then I shall contrast that with the picture, or rather the caricature, given of it by the noble Viscount. Remember also that this Committee cannot sit of its own accord. It can only come into existence, under the terms of the latest form of the
180
Amendment, on being summoned either by a Resolution of either House of Parliament, or by the Government of the clay on the motion of a Minister, or upon the initiative of the Speaker, acting either on his own account or upon the request of a certain number of members of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF CROMER: That is not in my Amendment.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I understood it was in the Amendment proposed by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF CROMER: I have not put in that the Committee should be summoned at the request of a minority of the House of Commons.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I beg the noble Earl's pardon. In so far as it can be brought into being upon the initiative of the Speaker, no doubt he would be susceptible to approach from members of the House to which he belongs.
THE EARL OF CROMER: Exactly.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: This Committee, thus composed and summoned would not decide upon a great or I illimitable range of questions. Its attention is confined not only to a limited number of cases per se, but also to cases which have-been three times passed by one House and three times rejected by the other. Accordingly the tribunal would meet on rare occasions for carefully defined objects, and under the most stringent safeguards. That is the Committee, as I understand it, which has been proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn. Now observe what I just now called the caricature of it which has been presented by the noble Viscount the spokesman of the Government. I will quote his words. Be said that this Committee—
"would oust the Ministers of the Crown and override and supersede the House of Commons."
The noble Viscount evidently meant something by that, because he cheers the remark. Well, to me it appeared that the only sense in which the Committee could possibly "oust the Ministers of the Crown and over-ride and supersede the House of Commons" would be in the event of the Ministry or the House of Commons abusing

181
their authority and utilising a transient and possibly an insignificant predominance in the House of Commons to force into law measures which might not be approved by the country. I hope I am not misrepresenting the noble Viscount. I trust I am delivering what is a fair criticism upon his remark.
It is really important that we, should meet the noble Viscount, because I see quite clearly that the representation, or misrepresentation, of our tribunal or Committee will be the platform upon which his followers will argue the case in the country, and it is for that reason that I am trying at as early a stage as possible to emphasise that we do not accept the picture of the noble Viscount. Then his second point was that this Committee would be clothed with powers tantamount to Dissolution and a General Election. That raises the whole question of what the Referendum is. The Referendum, in our opinion is not tantamount to a Dissolution of Parliament or a General Election in any sense of the term such as the noble Viscount implies. The Referendum is proposed by us because you decline for five years to give us a chance of a General Election. That is the point. Hitherto we have always had a security in the background. It was rarely utilised, but in the event of doubt whether a measure was acceptable to the people machinery existed by which there could be a reference to the people, or by which a measure could be delayed until the people could finally pronounce upon it. Because you deny us that liberty, because you are going to cripple the House of Lords of that power, we have been compelled, some of us very reluctantly as I shall show in a moment, to accept the Referendum.
Finally the noble Viscount made use of the astonishing remark that the creation of this tribunal would not only destroy the supremacy of the House of Commons but would take away the supremacy of the house of Lords. Well, I thought there was not much of that left to your Lordships' House now. I do not think the supremacy has ever been a very substantial one, and, as we understand it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to strip us of the last vestiges of that supremacy, if the setting up of this Committee can fairly be described as divesting us of any residue that is left I am sure
182
your Lordships will be quite willing to pay that price for the additional security that the country would obtain. But the speech of the noble Viscount has had one effect, it has finally converted me to the Referendum. I confess to being one of those who have never been much enamoured of the Referendum, though I might say that I am not in the least impressed by the popular arguments against it, such as its alleged cost, the frequency of its use, or the reluctance of voters to go to the poll. Those arguments never impressed me in the slightest degree, because they seemed to be derived from analogies not in the least pertinent to this country. I have always admitted in Inv own mind that the Referendum was a great experiment, a great innovation, for which no precise parallel can be found in the experience of any other country and file effects of which in our own country would be uncertain.
May I venture for a moment to allude to a personal matter? I did some years ago, as many of us have done in our salad says, commit myself to an expression of opinion about the Referendum in a magazine article which I think has been quoted in the House by the noble Viscount, Lord Morley, and which I believe was made somewhat free use of by members of his Party at the last election. I do not object to quotations being made from that article, though it was written in different circumstances and in reference to an entirely different situation—and with much of it I am still in agreement—but when I contemplate the policy of the Government, when I hear speeches like that of the noble Viscount this evening, so contemptuous of any suggestion on our part to take the will of the people, so inconsistent, as they appear to me, with tine democratic principle, I am compelled to reconsider my own position and views with regard to the Referendum. Hitherto we have had no need of the Referendum or anything like it in this country because our Constitution has provided us with the necessary securities and safeguards. There has been no need to go to a poll of the people, because in the back ground there has always been the opportunity for taking the will of the people. But now that you have destroyed that security and abolished that safeguard, those who hold the same views as myself are driven, reluctantly but logically, to the conclusion that something must be

183
set up in the place of that which you destroy. I honestly and deliberately say I know of no machinery which can possibly be set up by any Government, or any security which can take the place of that which we are losing, other than the Referendum such as it appears in the proposal of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne. Therefore when there is submitted to the House a proposal such as that for the Referendum, closely defined, narrowly restricted, incapable, so far as I can see, of being abused, and only set in operation by a competent and impartial tribunal which can only itself be started in an authoritative way, then I give my adhesion to the proposal of my noble friend, and I am confirmed in that attitude by the arguments—a mixture, as they appeared to me to be, equally of violence and of weakness— which have been directed against it in this debate.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: I should abuse your Lordships' kindness if I made anything like a second speech, but I should like to point out this to the noble Lord who has just sat down. He accused me of caricaturing the tribunal. I said I was quite indifferent as to which of the two forms of tribunal was adopted by the supporters of the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Curzon, is really caricaturing the operation under Lord Lansdowne's Amendment. What will happen? A Bill is passed through the House of Commons, proposed probably by a Minister and approved by a majority of that House. Then who is to move the reference to the Joint Committee, which may, if they think fit, end in a Referendum? What is the Committee to do? Here is a Bill passed three times in the House of Commons, and three times rejected by your Lordships. Then you have, if you think fit, by a Resolution to request the Joint Committee to set to work. The House of Commons will not set the Committee to work. The Ministry will not set the Committee to work. Why should they? They have passed their Bill, and sent it up to your Lordships. But the Committee have to determine whether or not the issue in the Bill is a question of "great gravity," and whether the opinion of the people upon it has been sufficiently ascertained. The noble Lord really missed the whole point of this. You are entrusting this Joint Committee, constituted as you please, with certain powers, and it is
184
against the application of the powers of that Committee that I, at all events, protest. That Committee, not caring what the House of Commons think, or what the Ministry think, and not responsible to anybody, has to decide whether or not the Bill is one of such gravity, or the evidence of popular support is so weak, that a Referendum should be taken. That is what I think the noble Lord did not quite understand.
LORD CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I understood perfectly, and I accept the definition of the operation of the Committee given by the noble Viscount. I agree entirely with what he has said, that these are the functions which we propose the Committee should perform. But the point where we differ is this, that the Committee in the last resort, by whatever authority it may be summoned, is only to decide whether the question shall go to the people. It does not itself decide the question; it is only a vestibule to the hall in which the people are sitting. That is all, and it is the people who sit in judgment in the hall who are the final tribunal. The Committee have only to open the door which gives access to the hall.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: One single question. How is the question of "great gravity" to be determined after your Lordships have rejected a measure three times? Are we to understand that your Lordships are guilty of such levity that you will reject a Bill three times and then apply to this Joint Committee to find out whether the subject is of "great gravity" or not?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE: My Lords, I listened with much attention to the eloquent and impassioned speech of the noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell. He is as fully entitled as any one to speak on Irish affairs, but I am sorry I cannot agree with him. If I believed that a separate Legislature for Ireland would solve the land question, would put an end to all strife and bitterness in the country, I would be inclined to vote for Home Rule. The noble Lord referred to the loyalty of the Irish nation, and quoted pages out of history to show that loyalty. I, for one, do not wish to disparage my own country. I am as fond of my own country as is the noble Lord, though I take a different view of the policy to be adopted.

185
It is quite true that when the Sovereign comes to Ireland he receives a good welcome. I do not for a moment deny that, but when one talks about the loyalty of the country one has to remember speeches made by prominent Nationalist Members. I do not say speeches made in the House of Commons, but speeches made sometimes in Ireland and sometimes in other parts of the Empire. Those speeches do not breathe that loyalty which the noble Lord says the Irish nation possesses.
The noble Lord, Lord MacDonnell, said something about the financial arrangements between Great Britain and Ireland, and, after quoting statistics, practically stated that if Ireland was given Home Rule she could run a Parliament of her own without any grant at all from the Imperial Treasury. I am not a financial expert. I am not in a position to challenge the figures produced by the noble Lord, but there are many financiers who do not agree with his statements. There have been articles in financial papers clearly pointing out that if Ireland is to get. Home Rule it must mean either a considerable reduction of expenditure, which is extremely unlikely, or else a considerable grant from the British Treasury. It is an old subject, and has been referred to over and over again in this debate. The Party of noble Lords opposite are never tired of telling us that they had a mandate for Home Rule at the last election. I think it has been shown that that is hardly the case. But was there represented at the last election to the electorate the possibility, you might almost say the probability, of a grant from the British Treasury having to be given to Ireland in order to carry out Home Rule? Really the whole question of Home Rule is a financial question to an enormous extent. Surely a question of this sort, which affects over 4,000,000 people in Ireland, which affects their property there, you may say their whole life, and, which must inevitably mean, from what I hear, a heavy contribution from the taxpayers of Great Britain—surely that ought to be put as a clear issue to the people.
One word about Ulster, from which province I come. It is said that we Ulster men are bigots. That is hardly a fair thing to say about us. We are just as fond of our country and just as proud of being Irishmen as the men from Minister, or Leinster,
186
or Connaught, but because we happen to take a different view as to the policy to be pursued in Ireland for the benefit of Ireland we are put down as bigots. It has been said that the Protestant minority will not suffer if Home Ride is granted. That may or may not be so. I must say I doubt it. It is not many years ago that the leader of the Nationalist Party, talking about the Unionists in Ulster, made use of these words—
"After all, they are only a handful even of the Protestants of Lister, and I fear they must be overborne by a strong hand."
I submit that before Home Rule is granted the people of this country should be consulted.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I would crave your Lordships' attention for a few moments while I explain why I find considerable difficulty in supporting the Amendment. I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Marquess, because we must all admire the admirable patience and temper with which he has conducted this debate. The difficulty I find myself in is that I do not quite understand from the speeches that have been delivered in favour of this Amendment how much of this proposal the noble Marquess intends to be permanent, and how much of it he only intends to meet a state of things which may be created if the Parliament Bill passes into law. I understand that the Referendum portion of the noble Marquess's proposal is to be more or less permanent, but I should very much like to know whether the noble Marquess proposes that the principle of the Joint Committee pervading the whole of our Parliamentary institutions is to be a part of the permanent settlement of the Constitutional question proposed by the leaders of the Opposition. It seems to me not impertinent for a member of the rank and file to ask this question, because this is a very grave crisis, and I believe that this House will only gain credit in the country if every man speaks for himself for the moment and says that which he considers best for the real benefit of the country. I know there is considerable difficulty in doing that, because, if we on this side all agree with the noble Marquess, according to the Radical newspapers the Conservative side of the House of Lords immediately becomes a "Tory caucus." If we disagree with the noble Marquess, the Radical newspapers next morning come out with "Revolt of the

187
backwoodsmen," and suggest that there has been a general undermining of the authority of the leaders of the Unionist Party, that the Tory Party is all at sixes and sevens, and so on.
If you are going to have a Second Chamber at all, the Second Chamber must have the power of reserving measures dealing with the Crown, Home Rule for Ireland, and other grave matters on which the electors have not been consulted. Noble Lords opposite seem to think it is unnecessary that particular attention should be drawn to these matters. I was going to remind them of the position they are in with regard to their connection with Socialism, only the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, has done it more eloquently than I could attempt to do, so I will not deal with that. But when you do talk to a Socialist, a Fabian, or whatever other name he will always begin by saying that he belongs to no political Party at all, but lie always finishes up by voting for the Radicals.
With regard to Home Rule, the reasons for referring it to the people before it is passed into law have already been eloquently stated. The noble Viscount, Lord Morley, says that this desire to pass a Home Rule Bill—which is in all probability about to be given effect to by the Radical Party if they get their own way—is, after all, nothing new, but an ancient conviction to which he, at any rate, has always been consistent. I agree with him with regard to himself, because he has always been a consistent Home Ruler, but at the same time if this desire to give Home Rule to Ireland is an ancient unalterable conviction on the part of the Radical Party, it seems very strange that it was pushed into the background in 1906 when the Radical Party had a majority independent of the Irish Party. It was only when the Prime Minister began to smell powder just before the 1909 election, and was warned that the Budget was not likely to be so popular as he thought it might be, that he found it necessary to go to the Albert Hall and revive the promise of a Home Rule Bill for Ireland. It is quite obvious that anything to do with the Crown, or Home Rule for Ireland, ought to be referred to the people. But are noble Lords quite sure that this Joint Committee is not
188
coming between you and the power of this House to refer what you may consider to be Home Rule for Ireland but which the Joint Committee may not consider to be a measure of Home Rule for Ireland? That point I wish to put to your Lordships, especially as both sides of the House appear to have considerable difficulty in inventing an authority, whether a one-man authority or a Joint Committee, to decide what is or what is not finance. I say that the same difficulty will arise in a Joint Committee saying what is or what is not Home Rule for Ireland. I am old fashioned enough to think that the House of Lords, or the Second Chamber, is, after all, the right body to say what is or what is not Home Rule for Ireland. It is quite true that I voted for Lord Cromer's Amendment to the first clause of this Bill, because, as I said at the time, I can conceive there may be circumstances in which it might be desirable that somebody should be empowered to define what is or what is not a financial measure; but I am not at all sure that we shall not get ourselves into a very serious difficulty by having assented to the principle of a Committee of this kind, especially after the remarks made by the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, and others on this and on the other side of the House, which show how exceedingly difficult it is to set up any body to adjudicate upon an important matter like finance.
There is one other thing I should like to bring before the notice of those who have been responsible for the framing of this Amendment. If these references of matters to a Joint Committee is going to be a permanent part of your settlement of the Constitutional question, then I say that that dimishes the power of the House of Lords by taking away from it the principal function of the Second Chamber, which is to decide what Bills are or are not meet to be referred to the people. If this is your idea of anything like a permanent settlement of this question, I say it entirely precludes the possibility of any reform of the House of Lords. I have myself assented to a reform of the House of Lords, but only on the understanding that a reformed Second Chamber should enjoy the full powers which the Second Chambers of all other countries enjoy, and which are at the present moment enjoyed in the Second Chamber of the Transvaal.

189
One more matter upon which I have a certain amount of misgiving with regard to this Amendment as a permanent settlement of the question is that it contemplates the Referendum as a universal solvent of all matters in dispute between the Upper Chamber and the House of Commons. For my part I have given a qualified adherence to the Referendum, thinking, as the Prime Minister does, that it may be unwise to absolutely rule out all cases in which the Referendum might possibly be applied. I have always thought that the Referendum ought to be kept pretty much in the same way as I believe the birch-rod is now kept in a modern educational establishment—to be used only on grave occasions when all other means of persuasion have absolutely broken down. If it is proposed to put all matters of dispute between the two Houses willy nilly to the Referendum—
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: Only grave matters.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: But it is only grave matters which the House of Lords has ever referred back, or ever will refer back under any conceivable system. Therefore if we are to be made responsible here and now for taking a Referendum on all and sundry matters in dispute between the two Houses, it is exceedingly difficult for me to support this as a permanent solution of the question, because I was quite convinced by those brilliant articles which Lord Curzon used to write for the National Review against the Referendum. I am in exactly the position which lie appeared to be in until a few minutes ago of not being particularly enamoured of the Referendum as a means of settling questions of dispute between the two Houses. Let me say that I do not criticise this Amendment in a captious spirit. It is only because I want information on this subject, particularly after the noble Lord, Lord Curzon, has told us that this is the platform on which we shall probably have to defend our position before the people. If that is so, I should like a platform which is a little less complicated. It is perfectly easy to criticise an Amendment of this kind, and I know that one retort may be that I have no alternative of my own. But my alternative to this or any other question in this connection is a perfectly simple one, and it is the integrity of the functions of
190
the British Constitution. Believe me, that is the best answer that the Unionist and the Constitutional Party can possibly make. When I say the functions, I say nothing about the men who will fulfil those functions, and I believe the argument will be accepted by the people. I believe also that sonic day, sooner or later, perhaps sooner than people think, we shall be working under a Second Chamber based upon public confidence, which will be strong enough to fulfil all the functions which history and experience agree are provided in the bi-cameral system in every country where that system prevails.
THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships very long, because nearly everything I wanted to say has been said, but there are two points that will, perhaps, bear discussing a little more. I am extremely sorry from my point of view, and I consider it a great mistake, that there have been any other Amendments on the Paper except the one now before your Lordships. I think our position would have been far stronger when we came to be judged by the country if nothing but the real essential things contained in this Amendment had been put before the country, and if your Lordships' powers of debate had not been dissipated over such a huge number of questions.
The particular cases mentioned in this Amendment are of the greatest importance. I think the House has passed too lightly over the first subsection of the Amendment. I think it would be a terrible thing if the burden of the responsibility for sending a Ministry to the country, as was suggested from the opposite side of the House, was thrown on to the Sovereign instead of on our shoulders, which are accustomed to bearing what abuse is necessary. Many people will agree with me that the Sovereign must at all costs be kept out of political troubles of that description, and that his position must not be made in the slightest degree more difficult than it is already.
With regard to the second subsection, which I will not go into although I feel as strongly on the subject as my fellow Unionist Peers in the North of Ireland, this is really, in my opinion, the crux of the whole of this debate. Although this is not the moment for a Home Rule debate, yet one knows—and I feel that it is almost

191
indecent to draw the veil that has been kept over this—that Home Rule is the purpose for which this interregnum is created. I feel certain, and I know a great many people who feel certain, that this Bill is only a cloak for a Home Rule Bill to be hurried through Parliament in the next two years. I am convinced that what has already been said this evening by Lord Mayo on the subject of Home Rule is very much the case. I live not only in the North but in the West of Ireland, and I know that the people who are now landowners are very far from having the same desire for Home Rule that they had. The case for Home Rule is very much weaker than it was when it was thrown out by the people of this country, and the case against Home Rule, while just as strong in the North of Ireland, is far stronger than it has ever been before in other parts of Ireland.
There is only one other thing I want to say, and that was rather to point to a remark that fell from the noble Viscount who leads this House. He made use of a very curious expression, and as curious expressions have been to a certain extent
192
brought up and held against certain members of this House, perhaps it would not be out of place if I reminded your Lordships of this expression from the leader of the Democratic Party in this House. In his speech this afternoon the noble Viscount used the words, "the penalty of an appeal to the country." That sounds a very curious way of expressing the democratic view. It seems to me that if any Party should support a desire to send questions to the country, it should be the Party which arrogates to itself the title of the Democratic Party. For myself I think I am, and a great many of the noble Lords here consider that they are, just as democratic, though, perhaps, not as violent as those who arrogate to themselves that title. I thought I would like to remind your Lordships of that expression, as it might possibly be useful when it comes to saying that the People's Party is entirely on the opposite side.
House resumed, and to be again in Committee To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Twelve o'clock, till Tomorrow, Four o'clock.